Split (1)

train · 20.9k rows

query_id stringlengths 32 32	query stringlengths 8 614	positive_passages listlengths 1 23	negative_passages listlengths 12 25	subset stringclasses 3 values
03632d379c18b965e1ebb1f46de80b38	Buying a home without a Real Estate Agent - Who should I get to do the paperwork?	[ { "docid": "41ab4c36b99b96f2f4178669093742e9", "text": "Generally, the paperwork realtors use is pre-written and pre-approved by the relevant State and real-estate organizations. The offers, contracts, etc etc a pretty straightforward and standard. You can ask a realtor for a small fee to arrange the documents for you (smaller than the usual 5% sellers' fee they charge, I would say 0.5% or a couple of hundreds of dollars flat fee would be enough for the work). You can try and get these forms yourself, sometimes you can buy them in the neighborhood Staples, or from various law firms and legal plans that sell standard docs. You can get a lawyer to go over it with you for almost nothing: I used the LegalZoom plan for documentation review, and it cost me $30 (business plan, individual is cheaper) to go over several purchase contracts ($30 is a monthly subscription, but you don't have to pay it for more than one month). But these are standard, so you do it once and you know how to read them all. If you have a legal plan from work, this may cover document review and preparation. Preparing a contract that is not a standard template can otherwise cost you hundreds of dollars. Title company will not do any paperwork for you except for the deed itself. They can arrange the deed and the recording, escrow and title insurance, but they will not write a contract for the parties to use. You have to come with the contract already in place, and with escrow instructions already agreed upon. Some jurisdictions require using a lawyer in a real-estate transaction. If you're in a jurisdiction (usually on a county level) that requires the transaction to go through a lawyer - then the costs will be higher.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa5414bc20e2a29959d95a4517bd6ba1", "text": "Whether or not you use a real estate agent, at some stage most people use a lawyer to do the actual buying and selling and set up the agreements. If you've never dealt with a lawyer directly before it's probably because your agent has acted as a front-person for the lawyer. If you go to a lawyer and tell them what you want to do they will sort it out, and should tell you in advance how much it will cost. You and your friend will probably need one each.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "644f9dfe7e76cf1819d4a18a32471b1d", "text": "For a real estate transaction there are multiple stages: From the sellers viewpoint: From the buyers viewpoint: If both parties are comfortable skipping some of the steps the role of the agent can be minimized. How will a fair price be determined? Some realism might be needed, to make sure that the loan appraisal will not be a problem. Will an inspection still be needed? What warranty will exist if the A/C dies this summer? If you still want help from an agent one should be able to help for far less than the normal commission. The seller normally interviews three agents before selecting one, do the same in this situation. Ask how much they would charge for a sale between friends. They can complete their task in just a couple of hours. If the home inspection comes back relatively clean, the transaction should be very easy. The paperwork is the biggest hurdle. You should jointly identify a local settlement company. They will be the ones actually filing the paperwork. They have lawyers. They will check the county records office for existing liens, plats, mortgages and address all the issues. They can send the proper paperwork to the existing mortgage companies and arrange for mortgage insurance. The cost will be the same regardless of the presence of real estate agents and other lawyers. When they say a lawyer is required, it is only because of the paperwork.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59d1d3529b92ba2c2bd4df949a02786e", "text": "Save yourself a lot of trouble you both agree on a Real Estate Attorney to prepare all the paperwork (ie. contract) and conduct the closing for or with the Title Company. Then you both split the normal costs of the transaction. (Real simple professionally handled and you both save the 6%)", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c1d160ca991e4573a96855b4c0ece8cc", "text": "They are not supposed to force any tax or escrow payments in addition to your normal principal and interest payment, unless you are delinquent on your taxes and insurance. If you are late or delinquent at all they can force you into escrows depending on how your Deed of Trust (mortgage) is worded. That being said, I've had to deal with BoA on behalf of clients over the same issues you just mentioned. Their whole system is made to cause chaos and confusion, especially for poor souls trying to complete a short sale, or a loan restructuring program. They are forever losing vital paperwork, or saying they didn't get documents in time, even though you spoke with someone to confirm receipt. They aren't really set up to help anyone, they just give the illusion of it before they foreclose. I owned a Title and Escrow company for many years, and most all mortgages with most all lenders (in our state) read they had the right to force escrow in the case of delinquency or even accelerate to foreclosure. If you've never been late on either or let your insurance lapse, or taxes fall delinquent, they shouldn't be able to require escrows, unless there is specific language in your original mortgage that says they can. Also, most people aren't aware that non payment isn't the only reason a lender can foreclose. Most mortgages read a lender can foreclose for the following reasons: -Non payment -Failure to keep homeowners insurance -Failure to pay taxes -Condemnation -Storing toxic waste, or hazardous materials -Illegal operations and usage (meth labs, etc...)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c8b73d5026f1e9bb5aa37158a80c2bf", "text": "\"You are asking about a common, simple practice of holding the mortgage when selling a house you own outright. Typically called seller financing. Say I am 70 and wish to downsize. The money I sell my house for will likely be in the bank at today's awful rates. Now, a buyer likes my house, and has 20% down, but due to some medical bills for his deceased wife, he and his new wife are struggling to get financing. I offer to let them pay me as if I were the bank. We agree on the rate, I have a lien on the house just as a bank would, and my mortgage with them requires the usual fire, theft, vandalism insurance. When I die, my heirs will get the income, or the buyer can pay in full after I'm gone. In response to comment \"\"how do you do that? What's the paperwork?\"\" Fellow member @littleadv has often posted \"\"You need to hire a professional.\"\" Not because the top members here can't offer great, accurate advice. But because a small mistake on the part of the DIY attempt can be far more costly than the relative cost of a pro. In real estate (where I am an agent) you can skip the agent to hook up buyer/seller, but always use the pro for legal work, in this case a real estate attorney. I'd personally avoid the general family lawyer, going with the specialist here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5744b01b567c29e20c49561da9ab4613", "text": "Awesome info, this is what I was looking for. I live in FL so i will look into LLC laws. Is there a difference in obtaining loans for multi-unit properties, or any special requirements? This would be my first purchase so I'm trying to decide if I should start with a multi-unit or a large home. I read something about a first time home buyers and the FHA allowing one to put down less of an initial investment. Im assuming this is if you are actually going to be living in the home or property? Would it make sense to have separate entities for specific types of units? For example One separate corporation per multi-unit property, but have multiple single family homes under another single entity? Thanks for the help. *quick add-on, would you know how long the corporation would have had to exist before being able to obtain a loan? For example, would XYZ, LLC. have to have been around for 3 years prior to the loan, or could i just incorporate the month before going to the bank?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "146939b11f6b5588c7c46d9512c63c47", "text": "what I should think about. If you decide to do this - get everything in writing. Get lease agreements to enforce the business side of the relationship. If they are not comfortable with that much formality, it's probably best not to do it, I'm not saying that you should not do this - but that you need to think about these type of scenarios before committing to a house purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c0e97e531c9ec7b73eafa67907df636", "text": "Selling a home by yourself, without an expensive real estate broker, is easier than most people think, but it will take some work on your part. You will be doing a lot of things that a real estate agent might normally do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e291cf7bd9bc900b436bf966f9ad9f03", "text": "You don't need to hire a lawyer. In general, there are three things a lawyer might do: (1) Review the language of the deed of sale (2) Review the terms of the mortgage (if there is one) (3) Hire a title search company to do a title search If you do not want to do these things or want to do them yourself, then you do not need a lawyer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "712a3ab5d1285093533ad5a00a63dd1a", "text": "\"First, don't try to understand other people's finances. Family or a trust could provide the minimum down payment, or even large chunk of the price, leaving them with a small/manageable monthly mortgage. More importantly, HGTV home buying shows are fake. Buyers don't actually buy, other people touring are just locals/ friends, and the entire plot is literally a written script. Source: My best friend had 3 of his listings on one of the shows as the house options, and our friends were the \"\"other buyers\"\" on the tour.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88b36b264f597acad982578c3083fc01", "text": "\"This is more of a long comment but may answer user's situation too. I have dealt with joint mortgages before in 3 states in the US. Basically in all three states if one party wants to sell, the home goes up for sale. This can be voluntary or it can go up via auction (not a great choice). In 2 of the 3 states the first person to respond to the court about the property, the other party pays all legal fees. Yes you read this right. In one case I had an ex who was on my mortgage, she had no money invested in the house ($0 down and still in college with no job). [If she wasn't on the mortgage I wouldn't have gotten loan - old days of dumb rules] When we split her lawyer was using the house as a way to extort other money from me. Knowing the state's laws I already filed a petition for the property but put it on hold with the clerk. Meaning that no one else could file but if someone tried mine would no longer be on hold. My ex literally spent thousands of dollars on this attorney and they wanted to sell the house and get half the money from the house. So sale price minus loan amount divided between us. This is the law in almost every state if there is no formal contract. I was laughing because she wanted what would be maybe 50-75K for paying no rent, no money down, and me paying for her college. Finally I broke her attorney down (I didn't lawyer up but had many friends who were lawyers advising). After I told her lawyer she wasn't getting anything - might have said it in not a nice way - her lawyer gave me her break down. To paraphrase she said, \"\"We are going to file now. My assistant is in the court clerk's office. You can tell the court whatever you want. Maybe they will give you a greater percentage since you put the money down and paid for everything but you are taking that chance. But you will pay for your lawyer and you will need one. And you will pay for me the entire time. And this will be a lengthy process. You would be better served to pay my client half now.\"\" Her office was about 2 blocks from court. I laughed at her and simply told her to have her assistant do whatever she wanted. I then left to go to clerk's office to take the hold off. She had beat me to the office (I moved my car out of her garage). By the time I got there she was outside yelling at her assistant, throwing a hissy fit, and papers were flying everywhere. We \"\"settled\"\" the next day. She got nothing other than the things she had already stolen from me. If I wouldn't have known about this loophole my ex would have gotten or cost me through attorney's fees around 40-50K for basically hiring a lawyer. My ex didn't really have any money so I am pretty sure lawyer was getting a percent. Moral of the story: In any contract like this you always want to be the one bringing in the least amount of money. There are no laws that I know of in any country where the person with the least amount on a contract will come out worse (%-wise). Like I said in the US the best case scenario that I know of for joint property is that the court pays out the stakeholder all of their contributions then it splits things 50/50. This is given no formal contract that the court upholds. Don't even get me started with hiring attorneys because I have seen the courts throw out so many property contracts it isn't even funny. One piece of advice on a contract if you do one. Make it open and about percentages. Party A contributes 50K, Party B 10K, Party A will pay this % of mortgage and maintenance and will get this % when home is sold. I have found the more specific things are the more loopholes for getting out of them. There are goofy ass laws everywhere that make no sense. Why would the person first filing get their lawyers paid for??? The court systems in almost all countries can have their comical corners. You will never be able to write a contract that covers everything. If the shower handle breaks, who pays for it? There is just too many one-off things with a house. You are in essence getting in a relationship with this person. I hear others say it is a business transaction. NO. You are living with this person. There is no way to make it purely business. For you to be happy with this outcome both of you must remain somewhat friends and at the very least civil with each other. To add on to the previous point, the biggest risk is this other person's character and state of mind. They are putting in the most money so you don't exactly have a huge money risk. You do have a time and a time-cost risk. Your time or the money you do have in this may be tied up in trying to get your money out or house sold. A jerk could basically say that you get nothing, and make you traverse the court system for a couple years to get a few thousand back. And that isn't the worst case scenario. Always know your worst case scenario. Yours is this dude is in love with you. When he figures out 2-3 years later after making you feel uncomfortable the entire time that you are not in love with him, he starts going nuts. So he systematically destroys your house. Your house worth plummets, you want out, you can't sell the house for price of loan, lenders foreclose or look to sue you, you pay \"\"double rent\"\" because you can't live with the guy, and you have to push a scooter to get to work. That is just the worst case scenario. Would I do this if I were 25 and had no family? Yea, why not if I trusted the other person and was friends with them? If it were just a co-worker? That is really iffy with me. Edit: Author said he will not be living with the person. So wording can be changed to say \"\"potentially\"\" in front of living with him in my examples.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ae4e62a46b49c6c6474a711da41519e", "text": "\"The other answers are talking about seller financing. There is another type of arrangement that might be described as \"\"writing your own mortgage,\"\" where the buyer arranges his (or her) own financing. Instead of using a bank, a buyer might find his own investor to hold the mortgage for him. An example would be if I were to buy a house that needs fixing up. I might be able to buy a house for $40,000, but after I fix it up, I believe it will sell for $100,000. Instead of going through a traditional mortgage bank, I find an investor with cash that agrees the house is a good deal, and we arrange for the investor to provide funds for the purchase of the house on a short-term basis (perhaps interest-only), during which I fix up the house and sell it. Just like a regular mortgage, the loan is backed by the house itself. I am not recommending this type of arrangement by any means, but this article does a good job of describing how this would work. It is written by a real-estate guru with lots of training courses and coaching materials that she would like to sell you. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "faa34371d5e2536da37e935804852217", "text": "Yes, your realtor is a moron. (I am a realtor, and sorry you have such a bad one) Every industry has its good and bad. You really should find a new realtor, a good one. You know the 1031 exchange is for rental property only. And that saving $2000 isn't worth staying in the house to complete the two years required occupancy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17033fd60806f1236b55ecb41824dbe1", "text": "Since you are leaving the country, get it sold by a real estate agent. If you choose to lower the price and get it done quickly, or if you choose to wait for a fair value, the key here is to get many independent referrals (like a dozen) so you agent is trustworthy. I don't think you need to sign over power of attorney as fax machines are pretty reliable these days. I won't matter if you live 50 miles or 5000 miles away. Renting it is not a great option because you can't easily follow up from another country. Don't sell it to the rock bottom places. Either you don't need the money and you can afford to you wait, or you need the money and it would be best to wait.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d32ccf220435358c890dd86b7bce3e2", "text": "\"Generally, it would be an accountant. Specifically in the case of very \"\"private\"\" (or unorganized, which is even worse) person - forensic accountant. Since there's no will - it will probably require a lawyer as well to gain access to all the accounts the accountant discovers. I would start with a good estate attorney, who in turn will hire a forensic accountant to trace the accounts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29392f0f37fbabadd75e643e01fc97a7", "text": "\"Getting a specific service recommendation is off-topic, but the question of what type of professional you need seems on-topic to me. You may be looking for more than one professional in this case, but you could try these to start your search: Different people do things differently, but I think it would be pretty common to have a relationship (i.e. contract, retainer agreement, at least have met the person in case you have an \"\"emergency\"\") with a business law attorney and either a CPA or tax attorney. You may try not to use them too much to keep costs down, but you don't want to be searching for one after you have an issue. You want to know who you're going to call and may establish at least a basis working relationship.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e04901082688c86e0deabb501d103e3", "text": "Whether you need to hire a lawyer depends on whether you are capable enough to understand the fine print and it's consequences in all the contracts you sign with the Builder or not. Even though the REPC is a standard document, the Builder may add additional addendum voiding many of the rights Buyers normally have. If you are not sure or have doubts about specific verbiage, I recommend that you at least get your Realtor to spell it out for you or hire a lawyer as an alternative.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37f1468d33edbdf2cc73c45e8868ae69", "text": "\"Actually in Finland on some bank + debit/credit card + online retailer combinations you type in your card details as you normally do, but after clicking \"\"Buy\"\" you get directed to your own bank's website which asks you to authenticate yourself with online banking credentials. It also displays the amount of money and to which account it is being paid to. After authentication you get directed back to the retailer's website. Cannot say why banks in US haven't implemented this.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1fd5c78ce9c8b8e288dc31ad0eadaba0	Questions about government bonds that have already matured	[ { "docid": "c30ba1d5f7e03c52a79cbf6b1b72e82d", "text": "I am assuming that you are talking about US Savings Bonds: Here is a page that talks about maturity dates of US Savings bonds. If They aren'tSavings bonds but are another type ofUS Government Bond Assuming they are Savings bonds, here is information regarding redeeming of bonds. How do I redeem my EE/E Bonds? Electronic bonds: Log in to Treasury Direct and follow the directions there. The cash amount can be credited to your checking or savings account within one business day of the redemption date. Paper bonds You can cash paper EE/E Bonds at many local financial institutions. We don't keep a list of banks that redeem bonds, so check with banks in your area. What will I need to redeem a paper bond? Before taking in the bonds to redeem them, it's usually a good idea to check with the financial institution to find out what identification and other documents you'll need. When you present your paper bonds, you'll be asked to show your identity. You can do this by being a customer with an active account open for at least 6 months at the financial institution that will be paying the bonds, or presenting acceptable identification such as a valid driver's license if the >redemption value of the bonds is less than $1,000. If you are not listed as the owner or co-owner on the bond, you'll have to show that you >are entitled to cash in the bond. The treasury direct website also discusses converting bonds, rules regarding using them for education, how often they are credited with interest", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d366d4fe216e2fbe1d20e138f28688e1", "text": "When the laws allow for bonds to be issued for anything other than infrastructure projects, you end up in financial ruin. Politicians can't help themselves, and spend future money, today on day to day expenses. Then future residents, are paying off bonds for items they see no current benefit on. It makes taxes appear high. Look at cities like Chicago as an example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a811ba05b575681ba2d20adffe6a2fc", "text": "This is something you are going to have to work out with the leasing company because your goal is to get them to make an exception to their normal rules. I'm a little surprised they wouldn't take 6 months pre-payment, plus documentation of your savings. One option might be to cash in the bonds (since you said they are mature), deposit them in a savings account, and show them your account balance. That documentation of enough to pay for the year, plus an offer to pay 6 months in advance would be pretty compelling. Ask the property manage if that's sufficient. And if the lease is for one year and you're willing to pay the entire year in advance, I can't see how they would possibly object. If your employment prospects are good (show them your resume and explain why you are moving and what jobs you are seeking) a smart property manager would realize you'll be an excellent, low-risk tenant and will make an effort to convince the parent company that you should live there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2aa481ffa2d33951bfdbbab1ebf2c7cb", "text": "Not really. You can have two bonds that have identical duration but vastly different convexity. Pensions and insurance portfolio managers are most common buyers as they're trying to deal with liability matching and high convexity allows them to create a barbell around their projected liabilities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d97bf4bb1460ad297443f840144b63f", "text": "To my knowledge, the only bond ever issued by a notable state into perpetuity was the Bank of England...and it was a miserable mess for all the obvious reasons. Edit : They were called consuls, and it appears i was wrong about them being catastriphic for the BOE. I'm sorry, i guess i must be cruising the permabear backwoods or something. Here's some interesting links i found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consols http://www.immediateannuities.com/annuitymuseum/annuitycertificatesofthebankofengland/consolidatedannuities/ http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/03/debt-crisis-0?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/hundredyearsofsolvency", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc7a11ffe10bae183558cb1ee4887bd4", "text": "Well, define shitty. The assumption of perfect competition should imply that only the firms that can manage to breakeven while still owing outstanding bonds will continue to issue bonds in the first place, as the competing monetary systems themselves will become a competitive market of their own. Information on the specific bond you're using as a medium of exchange/legal tender should be easily be easy to find or public information. If it's kind of bondnote has existed for five years with no substantial changes, my safe bet is on that bond being worth something.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43cc3e1388828369619c2a9314438375", "text": "Savings accounts have limitations in case a bank goes belly up and you have a higher amount in the account (more than the insured amount). Mostly big corporations or pension funds cannot rely on a bank to secure their cash but a government bond is secured (with some fine print) and hence they are willing to take negative interest rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77f2fb35a2beff9e1f1c485393fb6fd7", "text": "\"Hey guys I have a quick question about a financial accounting problem although I think it's not really an \"\"accounting\"\" problem but just a bond problem. Here it goes GSB Corporation issued semiannual coupon bonds with a face value of $110,000 several years ago. The annual coupon rate is 8%, with two coupons due each year, six months apart. The historical market interest rate was 10% compounded semiannually when GSB Corporation issued the bonds, equal to an effective interest rate of 10.25% [= (1.05 × 1.05) – 1]. GSB Corporation accounts for these bonds using amortized cost measurement based on the historical market interest rate. The current market interest rate at the beginning of the current year on these bonds was 6% compounded semiannually, for an effective interest rate of 6.09% [= (1.03 × 1.03) – 1]. The market interest rate remained at this level throughout the current year. The bonds had a book value of $100,000 at the beginning of the current year. When the firm made the payment at the end of the first six months of the current year, the accountant debited a liability for the exact amount of cash paid. Compute the amount of interest expense on these bonds for the last six months of the life of the bonds, assuming all bonds remain outstanding until the retirement date. My question is why would they give me the effective interest rate for both the historical and current rate? The problem states that the firm accounts for the bond using historical interest which is 10% semiannual and the coupon payments are 4400 twice per year. I was just wondering if I should just do the (Beginning Balance (which is 100000 in this case) x 1.05)-4400=Ending Balance so on and so forth until I get to the 110000 maturity value. I got an answer of 5474.97 and was wondering if that's the correct approach or not.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c67e6f56f03164604bd82a3209ff6377", "text": "\"According to Wikipedia, Treasury bills mature in 1 year or less to a fixed face value: Treasury bills (or T-Bills) mature in one year or less. Regular weekly T-Bills are commonly issued with maturity dates of 28 days (or 4 weeks, about a month), 91 days (or 13 weeks, about 3 months), 182 days (or 26 weeks, about 6 months), and 364 days (or 52 weeks, about 1 year). Treasury bills are sold by single-price auctions held weekly. The T-bills (as Wikipedia says, like zero-coupon bonds) are actually sold at a discount to their face value and mature to their face value. They do not return any interest before the date of maturity. Because the amount earned is fixed at purchase, \"\"return\"\" is a more accurate term than \"\"rate\"\" when referring to a specific T-bill. The \"\"rate\"\" is the difference between this return and the discount value you purchased it at. So, yes, your rate of return is guaranteed. T-notes (1-10 year) and T-bonds (20-30 year) also have an interest rate guaranteed, but have coupon payments (usually every 6 months), paying out a fixed amount of interest on the principal. (See more info on the same Wikipedia page.) Because those bonds are not compounding the interest it pays out, but instead paying out every 6 months, you'd have to purchase new securities to create a compound return, changing your rate of return over time slightly as the rates for new treasury securities changes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d23059a1030f57f11c292f802661466c", "text": "\"The only party that can pay back a government bond is the government that issued it itself. In the case of Argentina, US vulture funds have won cases against it, but it has yet to pay. The best one can do to collect is to sue in a jurisdiction that permits and hope to seize the defaulted government's assets held in such jurisdiction. One could encourage another state to go to war to collect, but this is highly unlikely since a state that doesn't repay is probably a poor state with nothing much to loot; besides, most modern governments do not loot the conquered anymore. Such a specific eventuality hasn't happened in at least a lifetime, anyways. It is highly unlikely that any nation would be foolish enough to challenge the United States considering its present military dominance. It is rare for nations with medium to large economies to spurn their government obligations for long with Argentina as the notable exception. Even Russia became current when they spontaneously disavowed their government debt during the oil collapse of 1998. Countries with very small economies such as Zimbabwe are the only remaining nations that try to use their central banks to fund debt repayments if they even repay at all, but they quickly see that the destruction caused by hyperinflation neither helps with government debt nor excessive government expenditure. Nevertheless, it could be dangerous to assume that no nation would default on its debt for any period of time, and the effects upon countries with defaulted government debt show that it has far reaching negative consequences. If the US were to use its central bank to repay its government obligations, the law governing the Federal Reserve would have to be changed since it is currently mandated to \"\"maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates.\"\" The United States Treasury has no power over the Federal Reserve thus cannot force the Federal Reserve to betray its mandate by purchasing government debt. It should be noted that while Japan has a government debt twice its GDP, it also has a persistent slight deflation which has produced incredibly low interest rates, allowing it to finance government debt more easily, a situation the US does not enjoy. For now, the United States seems to be able to pay expenditures and finance at low interest rates. At what ratio of government debt to GDP that would cause interest rates to climb thus put pressure on the US's ability to repay does not seem to be well known.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1956eda0d10bf584cee552b2658f379d", "text": "Historically when short term treasuries (maturity less than 5 years) have a higher yield than long term treasuries (10+ years) a recession has followed within a year or so. Don't quote me on the bond maturities and how quickly a recession occurs but it's basically accurate. Edit: we are not there right now but that seems to be the trending direction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce6a9019ce22a1ff13282f68d93ca6f4", "text": "\"A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly. The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity. It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity. This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh. Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question. Bond prices today reflect what \"\"people\"\" are willing to pay for them. Those \"\"people\"\" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them. If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that. (aka \"\"Don't fight the Fed\"\"). My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-) This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general. The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b5c2d2d0b24bbc4e6e44fc699b7c4d8", "text": "Maximizing income could mean a lot of things. What you really want is to maximize wealth. Doesn't matter if it comes from your bond appreciating in value or as dividends. In order to maximize your wealth (that's today's wealth), you need to make decisions based on the net present value of these bonds. The market is fairly priced, especially for a tight market like government bonds. That means if your bond falls in price, it has fallen by precisely the amount necessary so that an investor would be indifferent between purchasing it now, at its current price, and purchasing a new bond with a higher dividend. The bonds with higher dividends will simply have a higher price, so more of the money comes as dividends than as price appreciation (at maturity it will sell for face value). In other words, the animals are out of the barn and you have lost (or made) money already. Changing from one bond to another will not change your wealth one way or the other. The only potential effect of changing bonds will be changing the risk of your portfolio. If you buy a bond that matures later or has a lower dividend than your current bond, you will be adding additional interest rate risk to your portfolio. That risk should be compensated, so you will have a higher expected return as well. But regardless of your choice you will not be made wealthier or less wealthy by changing from one bond to another. Should you buy bonds that will earn you the most possible? Sure, if you are below your risk tolerance. Even among default free bonds, the longer the maturity and the lower the dividend, the greater the effect of future changes in interest rates on your bond. That makes them riskier, but also makes them earn more money on average. TL;DR: In terms of your wealth, which is what matters, it doesn't matter whether you hold your bond or buy a new one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e538c046c14ab86ba88dc26048ac046", "text": "\"What could happen to bonds such as these because of Detroit filing for bankruptcy? Depending on how the courts process Detroit's situation, there could be that some bonds become worthless since they are so low and the city can't pay anything on those low priority debts. Others may get pennies on the dollar. There could also be the case that some bailout comes along that makes the bonds good though I'd say that is a long shot at this point. Are these bonds done for, or will bondholders receive interest payments and eventual payment? I wouldn't suspect that they are done for in the sense of being completely worthless though at the same time, I'd be very careful about buying any of them given that they are likely to be changed a great deal. Could these bonds tend to rise over time after the bankruptcy? Yes, it is possible. If there was some kind of federal or state bailout that is done, the bonds could rise. However, that is one heck of an \"\"if\"\" as you'd need to have someone come to guarantee the bonds in a sense. What similar situations from the past might support this idea? Not that many as this is the biggest municipal bankruptcy ever, but here are a few links that may be useful as a starting point, though keep in mind Detroit's scale is part of the story as it is such a big amount being defaulted:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e5bf0acaab86f7c441d33d9a8c721f8", "text": "\"Still waiting, still not seeing any that have.. When you debate someone, in a forum or somewhere other than your armchair, I suggest you forget about trying to demand a opposite answer from someone as an answer to a question. Its not only childish, its really quite silly. You are, by all definitions, a troglodyte. If you think of those ignorant \"\"republican christians\"\", thats how you are acting now. No country in the past has ever sold and bought there own debt at the same time I can promise you I worked in finance, for a large highly rated company, then got rich building a business. I know this hurts, but honestly, when you are wrong, just admit it and move on. Ignorance is just so sad to display and probably keeps you held back in life anyways. Im off to bed though I am sure you'll declare yourself victor of not naming a single country that bought and sold its own debt in history. But, maybe its ANY victory in your head you need right now. Who knows. ------------------------------------------- Update 1 * lol I see you changed your answer, let me do the same. The fact that the \"\"bank of england\"\" in 1694 is the model of \"\"modern\"\" central banks STILL doesn't show that they BOUGHT THERE OWN DEBT. Do you still not understand this yet? Modern central banking has NOTHING TO DO with buying your own debt. You really are clueless as to how \"\"economics\"\" works aren't you? ------------------------------------------- Update 2 * I think you keep changing them, because for some reason you just won't admit you have no understanding of modern/classical banking. Once again: >In order to induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The bank was given exclusive possession of the government's balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue bank-notes.[12] The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and also issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy. This statement still DOES NOT show that the government here simultaniously purchased its own bonds it issued. It issued debt, yes, no one is debating this. The bank, for all purposes, acted as the Treasury for England. But honestly, you are a fucking piece of work. I have watched you lie, change your answers, and pretty much do every childish thing in the book to try to win an arguement on Reddit. You are a little person, honestly. I know not of what world you live in, but it isn't this one. Seriously, get better, the world is alot more fun when you don't suck so bad at it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "068cb721b9e627d262e7902c1f09804a", "text": "There are PABs (Private Activity Bonds) for the smaller market issues, but you basically need a local government to act as the conduit issuer. There are a whole host of other requirements but it is a way to potentially get tax-exempt rates or get access to the taxables market.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
0ccd72f516f3582ce5f26d2824529284	What are the key facts to research before buying shares of a company?	[ { "docid": "ff9b12799781b903526342148e0505d3", "text": "\"I have my \"\"safe\"\" money in index funds but like to dabble in individual stocks. My criteria and thought process are usually like this, let's use SBUX as an example: Understand what the company does. Also paraphrased as \"\"buy what you know\"\". A profitable/growing business doesn't need to be complicated. Open stores. Sell coffee. For SBUX, my decision process literally started inside a store: \"\"Rocky, why are you standing in line to overpay for coffee? Wow, look at all these people! Hmmm. I wonder if this is a good stock to buy?\"\" Check out their fundamentals. Are they profitable? P.E.ratio, book value, and PEG are helpful, and I tend to use them as a gauge for whether I think the stock is overpriced or not. I compare those values to others in the industry. SBUX right now has a PE of ~30, which looks about average for its peers (PEP, KKD, GMCR). So far so good. Does it pay a dividend? This isn't necessarily good or bad, just useful to know. I like dividend-paying stocks, even if it means the stock price might not grow as aggressively. Also, a company that pays a dividend is naturally confident in its ability to turn a profit and generate cash. So it's a safer pick, in my opinion. SBUX pays a dividend, a small one, but that's a plus for me. Am I willing to watch the stock? With my index funds, I buy and forget. With my stocks, I keep an eye on the situation, read the news, and have to make a buy/sell decision regularly. With SBUX, I don't watch all that closely, I just keep up with the news. IMO, it's still a buy based on all the above criteria. And I feel less silly now standing in line to overpay for coffee.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ba932ab7edd82cd583be7d0ce813cdbc", "text": "The most significant capability that an investor must have is the knowledge on the way to look for the high dividend stocks. Through accumulating good information relating to towards the stocks that you are finding is the better way of getting the perfect and profitable investments. It is really important to learn what makes a particular stock better and superior compared to other. Traders are essential to start a complete analysis and investigation before getting their money on any business projects. Obviously, investors certainly want to have an investment that could guarantee an effective expense for a very reasonable cost the moment of getting it. The chances of crucial to invest in a market that you might be aware and qualified about. So, creating a comparison and compare in one business to a different is totally essential so as to find the high dividend stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "725951659c06b70d8fe02aca12320d51", "text": "I use 10-K and 10-Qs to understand to read the disclosed risk factors related to a business. Sometimes they are very comical. But when you see that risk factor materializing you can understand how it will effect the company. For example, one microlending company's risk factor stated that if Elizabeth Warren becomes head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we will have a hard time... so we are expanding in Mexico and taking our politically unfavorable lending practices there. I like seeing how many authorized shares there are or if there are plans to issue more. An example was where I heard from former employees of a company how gullible the other employees at that company were and how they all thought they were going to get rich or were being told so by upper management. Poor/Quirky/Questionable/Misleading management is one of my favorite things to look for in a company so I started digging into their SEC filings and saw that they were going to do a reverse split which would make the share prices trade higher (while experiencing no change in market cap), but then digging further I saw that they were only changing the already issued shares, but keeping the authorized shares at the much larger amount of shares, and that they planned to do financing by issuing more of the authorized shares. I exclaimed that this would mean the share prices would drop by 90%-99% after the reverse split and you mean to tell me that nobody realizes this (employees or the broad market). I was almost tempted to stand outside their office and ask employees if I could borrow their shares to short, because there wasn't enough liquidity on the stock market! This was almost the perfect short but it wasn't liquid or have any options so not perfect after all. It traded from $20 after the reverse split to $1.27 I like understanding how much debt a company is in and the structure of that debt, like if a loan shark has large payments coming up soon. This is generally what I use those particular forms for. But they contain a lot of information A lot of companies are able to act they way they do because people do not read.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fb2ffdbc44f0f39716c4966623450b3", "text": "\"First, you mentioned your brother-in-law has \"\"$100,000 in stock options (fully vested)\"\". Do you mean his exercise cost would be $100,000, i.e. what he'd need to pay to buy the shares? If so, then what might be the estimated value of the shares acquired? Options having vested doesn't necessarily mean they possess value, merely that they may be exercised. Or did you mean the estimated intrinsic value of those options (estimated value less exercise cost) is $100,000? Speaking from my own experience, I'd like to address just the first part of your question: Have you treated this as you would a serious investment in any other company? That is, have you or your brother-in-law reviewed the company's financial statements for the last few years? Other than hearing from people with a vested interest (quite literally!) to pump up the stock with talk around the office, how do you know the company is: BTW, as an option holder only, your brother-in-law's rights to financial information may be limited. Will the company share these details anyway? Or, if he exercised at least one option to become a bona-fide shareholder, I believe he'd have rights to request the financial statements – but company bylaws vary, and different jurisdictions say different things about what can be restricted. Beyond the financial statements, here are some more things to consider: The worst-case risk you'd need to accept is zero liquidity and complete loss: If there's no eventual buy-out or IPO, the shares may (effectively) be worthless. Even if there is a private market, willing buyers may quickly dry up if company fortunes decline. Contrast this to public stock markets, where there's usually an opportunity to witness deterioration, exit at a loss, and preserve some capital. Of course, with great risk may come great reward. Do your own due diligence and convince yourself through a rigorous analysis — not hopes & dreams — that the investment might be worth the risk.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e07711725e88f3c785686eb535ef03b", "text": "\"I think you need to realize that regardless of whether they are \"\"shady\"\" or not, owners/founders are by and large in it for themselves. You as an employee as just a resource - why should they divulge their finances to you? You won't offend them if you pry and ask for it, but they simply are not going to give you the straight up. They will give you a bare minimum or some song and dance that beats around the bush without actually telling you what you need to know. In regards to whether you should buy the restricted shares: why not? Startups are a gamble anyway. So simply decide how much you're willing to gamble, and spend that much buying some shares. I mean, you're already taking the gamble by accepting a lower salary in exchange for equity which, in all likelihood, will never be worth anything anyway.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "becdcfc45a8504a311011b12d5987a2d", "text": "When you start to buy stock, don't buy too little of it! Stocks come at a cost (you pay a commission), and you need to maintain a deposit, you have to take these costs into account when buying to calculate your break even point for selling. Don't buy stock for less than 1.500€ Also, diversify. Buy stock from different sectors and from different geographies. Spread your risks. Start buying 'defensive' stocks (food, pharma, energy), then move to more dynamic sectors (telecom, informatics), lastly buy stock from risky sectors that are not mature markets (Internet businesses). Lastly, look for high dividend. That's always nice at the end of the year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a2880cc32f51a709d7cc91acef8eb9e", "text": "\"Let's handle this as a \"\"proof of concept\"\" (POC); OP wants to buy 1 share of anything just to prove that they can do it before doing the months of painstaking analysis that is required before buying shares as an investment. I will also assume that the risks and costs of ownership and taxes would be included in OP's future analyses. To trade a stock you need a financed broker account and a way to place orders. Open a dealing account, NOT an options or CFD etc. account, with a broker. I chose a broker who I was confident that I could trust, others will tell you to look for brokers based on cost or other metrics. In the end you need to be happy that you can get what you want out of your broker, that is likely to include some modicum of trust since you will be keeping money with them. When you create this account they will ask for your bank account details (plus a few other details to prevent fraud, insider trading, money laundering etc.) and may also ask for a minimum deposit. Either deposit enough to cover the price of your share plus taxes and the broker's commission, plus a little extra to be on the safe side as prices move for every trade, including yours, or the minimum if it is higher. Once you have an account the broker will provide an interface through which to buy the share. This will usually either be a web interface, a phone number, or a fax number. They will also provide you with details of how their orders are structured. The simplest type of order is a \"\"market order\"\". This tells the broker that you want to buy your shares at the market price rather than specifying only to buy at a given price. After you have sent that order the broker will buy the share from the market, deduct the price plus tax and her commission from your account and credit your account with your share.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9923e71c2661b4ac9ff863f6a48aa79", "text": "\"Buying shares back is an indication that the company has nothing better to do with their money. True. However, buying the shares back is essentially moving money around, the firms (or individuals) they buy from, will invest their money differently. Mergers and acquisitions are productive though. The idea is that you combine things to work more efficiently. For example, a small startup might have a great product but not a lot of infrastructure or cash. So the big guys with both buy em up. Or, big companies might have redundant expenditures in infrastructure or employees, and by merging they can produce more efficiently. The term you keep using \"\"real economy\"\" is a strange one. The above parties are part of the real economy. Really. What, may I ask, is your education in economics? What books have you read on the subject, classes taken, jobs worked, podcasts listened to, etcetera, that are giving you these ideas?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3d0faea96982b5a5ffaa1971f1df44c", "text": "No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "364522c1c91bc24141f5ae554ae35516", "text": "What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ff798af431d6755b22dcf6694af8ed0", "text": "\"Ditto to MD-Tech, but from a more \"\"philosophical\"\" point of view: When you buy stock, you own it, just like you own a cell phone or a toaster or a pair of socks that you bought. The difference is that a share of stock means that you own a piece of a corporation. You can't physically take possession of it and put it in your garage, because if all the stock-holders did that, then all the company's assets would be scattered around all the stock-holder's garages and the company couldn't function. Like if you bought a 1/11 share in a football team, you couldn't take one of the football players home and keep him in your closet, because then the team wouldn't be able to function. (I might want to take one of the cheerleaders home, but that's another subject ...) In pre-electronic times, you could get a piece of paper that said, \"\"XYZ Corporation - 1 share\"\". You could take physical possession of this piece of paper and put it in your filing cabinet. I'm not sure if you can even get such certificates any more; I haven't seen one in decades. These days it's just recorded electronically. That doesn't mean that you don't own it. It just means that someone else is keeping the records for you. It's like leaving your car in a parking lot. It's still your car. The people who run the parking lot doesn't own it. They are keeping it for you, but just because they have physical possession doesn't make it theirs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f0d832f5d7b871a5be90f876c28da0d", "text": "A cautionary tale: About 25 years ago I decided that I should try my hand at investing in some technology companies. I was in the computer biz but decided that I might suffer from myopia there, so I researched some medical startups. And I did some reasonably good research, given the available resources (the Internet was quite primitive). I narrowed things down to 4-5 companies, studying their technology plans, then researched their business plans and their personnel. In the end I picked a drug company. Not only did it have a promising business plan, but it had as it's CEO a hotshot from some other company, and the BOD was populated buy big names from tech companies and the like. AND the company had like $2 of cash for every $1 of outstanding share value, following their recent IPO. So I sold a bit of stock I had in my employer and bought like $3000 worth of this company. Then, taking the advice I'd seen several places, I forgot about it for about 6 months. When I went back to look their stock value had dropped a little, and the cash reserves were down about 20%. I wasn't too worried. 6 months later the cash was down 50%. Worrying a little. After I'd had the stock for about 2 years the stock price was about 10% of what I'd paid. Hardly worth selling, so I hung on for awhile longer. The company was eventually sold to some other company and I got maybe $50 in stock in the new company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "915e6ec3c328a2e4c2e8506fe7bc97cb", "text": "\"This is several questions wrapped together: How can I diplomatically see the company's financial information? How strong a claim does a stockholder or warrantholder have to see the company's financials? What information do I need to know about the company financials before deciding to buy in? I'll start with the easier second question (which is quasi implicit). Stockholders typically have inspection rights. For example, Delaware General Corporate Law § 220 gives stockholders the right to inspect and copy company financial information, subject to certain restrictions. Check the laws and corporate code of your company's state of incorporation to find the specific inspection right. If it is an LLC or partnership, then the operating agreement usually controls and there may be no inspection rights. If you have no corporate stock, then of course you have no statutory inspection rights. My (admittedly incomplete) understanding is that warrantholders generally have no inspection rights unless somehow contracted for. So if you vest as a corporate stockholder, it'll be your right to see the financials—which may make even a small purchase valuable to you as a continuing employee with the right to see the financials. Until then, this is probably a courtesy and not their obligation. The first question is not easy to answer, except to say that it's variable and highly personal for small companies. Some people interpret it as prying or accusatory, the implication being that the founders are either hiding something or that you need to examine really closely the mouth of their beautiful gift horse. Other people may be much cooler about the question, understanding that small companies are risky and you're being methodical. And in some smaller companies, they may believe giving you the expenses could make office life awkward. If you approach it professionally, directly, and briefly (do not over-explain yourself) with the responsible accountant or HR person (if any), then I imagine it should not be a problem for them to give some information. Conversely, you may feel comfortable enough to review a high-level summary sheet with a founder, or to find some other way of tactfully reviewing the right information. In any case, I would keep the request vague, simple, and direct, and see what information they show you. If your request is too specific, then you risk pushing them to show information A, which they refuse to do, but a vague request would've prompted them to show you information B. A too-specific request might get you information X when a vague request could have garnered XYZ. Vague requests are also less aggressive and may raise fewer objections. The third question is difficult to say. My personal understanding is some perspective of how venture capitalists look at the investment opportunity (you didn't say how new this startup is or what series/stage they are on, so I'll try to stay vague). The actual financials are less relevant for startups than they are for other investments because the situation will definitely change. Most venture capital firms like to look at the burn rate or amount of cash spent, usually at a monthly rate. A high burn rate relative to infusions of cash suggests the company is growing rapidly but may have a risk of toppling (i.e. failing before exit). Burn rate can change drastically during the early life of the startup. Of course burn rate needs the context of revenues and reserves (and latest valuation is helpful as a benchmark, but you may be able to calculate that from the restricted share offer made to you). High burn rate might not be bad, if the company is booming along towards a successful exit. You might also want to look at some sort of business plan or info sheet, rather than financials alone. You want to gauge the size of the market (most startups like to claim 9- or 10-figure markets, so even a few percentage points of market share will hit revenue into the 8-figures). You'll also have to have a sense for the business plan and model and whether it's a good investment or a ridiculous rehash (\"\"it's Twitter for dogs meets Match.com for Russian Orthodox singles!\"\"). In other words, appraise it like an investor or VC and figure out whether it's a prospect for decent return. Typical things like competition, customer acquisition costs, manufacturing costs are relevant depending on the type of business activity. Of course, I wouldn't ignore psychology (note that economists and finance people don't generally condone the following sort of emotional thinking). If you don't invest in the company and it goes big, you'll kick yourself. If it goes really big, other people will either assume you are rich or feel sad for you if you say you didn't get rich. If you invest but lose money, it may not be so painful as not investing and losing out the opportunity. So if you consider the emotional aspect of personal finance, it may be wise to invest at least a little, and hedge against \"\"woulda-shoulda\"\" syndrome. That's more like emotional advice than hard-nosed financial advice. So much of the answer really depends on your particular circumstances. Obviously you have other considerations like whether you can afford the investment, which will be on you to decide. And of course, the § 83(b) election is almost always recommended in these situations (which seems to be what you are saying) to convert ordinary income into capital gain. You may also need cash to pay any up-front taxes on the § 83(b) equity, depending on your circumstances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e53928f128307a21a43fe26ba4fc132", "text": "\"You can learn very little from it. Company directories are often given share options or shares as a bonus, and because of that they are unlikely to buy shares. When they sell shares, you'll hear people shouting \"\"so-and-so sold his or her shares, they must know something bad about the company\"\". The truth is that you can't eat or drink shares. If that company director owning shares worth a million dollars wants to buy a new Ferrari, he will find that Ferrari doesn't give free cars to people owning lots of shares. He actually has to sell the shares to get the money for the car, and that's what he does.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c7b7bc49b3a18d2c21e9f2ddc23d02c", "text": "A share of stock is a small fraction of the ownership of the company. If you expect the company to eventually be of interest to someone who wants to engineer a merger or takeover, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay to help make that happen or keep it from happening. Which means it will almost always track the company's value to some degree, because the company itself will buy back shares when it can if they get too cheap, to protect itself from takeover. It may also start paying dividends at a later date. You may also value being able to vote on the company's actions. Including whether it should offer a dividend or reinvest that money in the company. Basically, you would want to own that share -- or not -- for the same reasons you would want to own a piece of that business. Because that's exactly what it is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7da0708a8b135ad64f3f50ce0300ce98", "text": "When you buy shares, you are literally buying a share of the company. You become a part-owner of it. Companies are not required to pay dividends in any given year. It's up to them to decide each year how much to pay out. The value of the shares goes up and down depending on how much the markets consider the company is worth. If the company is successful, the price of the shares goes up. If it's unsuccessful, the price goes down. You have no control over that. If the company fails completely and goes bankrupt, then the shares are worthless. Dilution is where the company decides to sell more shares. If they are being sold at market value, then you haven't really lost anything. But if they are sold below cost (perhaps as an incentive to certain staff), then the value of the company per share is now less. So your shares may be worth a bit less than they were. You would get to vote at the AGM on such schemes. But unless you own a significant proportion of the shares in the company, your vote will probably make no difference. In practice, you can't protect yourself. Buying shares is a gamble. All you can do is decide what to gamble on.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
67a1d47b9a6c0f49e796b2e85a902f7d	Why do the 1 and 2 euro cent coins exist and why are they used?	[ { "docid": "25da7212d6f6b1efbc4ee48699bcdd24", "text": "While dealing with US pennies and not 1 and 2 cent euro pieces, you may find this Wikipedia article of interest and analogous: Penny debate in the United States This article briefly summarizes both the arguments for and against retaining the one cent piece. The arguments against include: Arguments for preservation include: Already a number of countries have removed their equivalents of the one and two cent coins, including New Zealand, Sweden, Australia, Israel, and Brazil (to name a few).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96e19b1eecb7bdc0b59c5bc4571733ce", "text": "I guess other than tradition and inflation, probably because the merchants want them. In the US, what currently costs $2.00 used to cost $0.10. So 75 years ago, those individual cents made a pretty bid difference. Inflation causes prices to go up, but doesn't get us to just change our currencies patterns. In your example, you are assuming that in an average day, the rounding errors you are willing to accept happen a couple of times. 2 or 3 cents here and there mean nothing to you. However to the merchant, doing hundreds or thousands of transactions per day, those few cents up and down mean quite a bit in terms of profit. To an individual, looking at a time frame more than a single day (because who only participates in economies for a single day) there are potentially millions of transactions in a lifetime, mean potentially giving away millions of dollars because they didn't want to wait. And as for the comment that people working each 3 cents every 10 seconds, I would assume at least some of the time when they are waiting for rounding errors, they are not at work getting paid. That concept is assuming that somebody is always willing to pay them for their time regardless of where that person is in the world; I have no facts and wild assumptions, but surely that can't be true for even a majority of workers. Finally, you should be happy if you happy to have an income high enough that you don't care about individual cents. But there are those business people who see opportunity in folks like you and profit greatly from it. I personally worry very much about who has my money; gov't gets paid to the penny and I expect returns to the penny. A super polite service employee who smiled a lot serving me a beer is getting all the rounding errors I have.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c4d799f952082cf6768813a8df4b3127", "text": "The Swiss franc has appreciated quite a bit recently against the Euro as the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to print money to buy government bonds issues by Greek, Portugal, Spain and now Italy. Some euro holders have flocked to the Swiss franc in an effort to preserve the savings from the massive Euro money printing. This has increased the value of the Swiss franc. In response, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) has tried to intervene multiple times in the currency market to keep the value of the Swiss franc low. It does this by printing Swiss francs and using the newly printed francs to buy Euros. The SNB interventions have failed to suppress the Swiss franc and its value has continued to rise. The SNB has finally said they will print whatever it takes to maintain a desired peg to the Euro. This had the desired effect of driving down the value of the franc. Which effect will this have long term for the euro zone? It is now clear that all major central bankers are in a currency devaluation war in which they are all trying to outprint each other. The SNB was the last central bank to join the printing party. I think this will lead to major inflation in all currencies as we have not seen the end of money printing. Will this worsen the European financial crisis or is this not an important factor? I'm not sure this will have much affect on the ongoing European crisis since most of the European government debt is in euros. Should this announcement trigger any actions from common European people concerning their wealth? If a European is concerned with preserving their wealth I would think they would begin to start diverting some of their savings into a harder currency. Europeans have experienced rapidly depreciating currencies more than people on any other continent. I would think they would be the most experienced at preserving wealth from central bank shenanigans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63a60de66bf2f81222c7f190985625da", "text": "\"Their \"\"worth\"\" is whatever someone is willing to pay to have them. The mint presumably thinks that some people (collectors) are willing to pay at least 55$ CAD for them. Their value as currency is only 3$ CAD. Their value as precious metal/crystal is irrelevant, as its illegal to melt (without explicit permission) coins that are legal tended in Canada.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18dae2aeb2b806d7ead62f6ce0d1bf19", "text": "I'm pretty sure using it wastes a lot of man-hours in the economy. Handling money isn't cheap. Handling pennies is asinine. We should probably get rid of nickels and quarters too just to do away with the last decimal place, just dimes and a (smaller than current) half-dollar.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c29dadbcd76ac73e7487925a1743a7e", "text": "\"The face value of the pennies is meaningless; the $80 didn't \"\"go\"\" anywhere. The metal in those pennies is still worth $180 (less whatever small amount was lost in the stamping/production process). It's essentially the same thing as asking where the $99.877 worth of profit is when you spend 12.3 cents to create a $100 bill. We shouldn't be saying that we lose [production cost of coin] minus [face value of coin] when producing a coin. But it certainly is correct to question why we spend such-and-such to produce a coin that many people don't want to use in the first place.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac7b2e3f5a1eb74257497cab899ae4b2", "text": "Some answers already informed about denomination. There are currencies, doing the cut off of two digits, for example the french franc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_franc#New_franc When you look to old french movies, they often talked about 'old franc' when talking about values (at least in French original, I don't know what happens in English translations).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37cce47a1ca4680ec6b7e86a5aac1343", "text": "AFAIK money is a fiat currency. The penny is only worth what the US government says it it worth. If I choose to have my coin material made into pennies then I face an opportunity cost because I could of used that copper elsewhere. If a penny worth of copper is worth 1.8 cents and I choose to make it into a a coin with a value of 1 cent then my opportunity cost is .8 cents. The whole point of a fiat currency is to take the actual material value of the money out of the equation. A gold coin back before fiat currencies was worth its weight in gold. This would be like saying that you are going to nominally change the value of your gold coin into a coin worth half of its weight. Its weight(value) is equal to 1 gold coin but its spending power is equal to 1/2 a gold coin. Do you lose value? Of course not. Do you lose spending power? YES Fiat currency is all about spending power, the value is fictional. When I make the spending power less than the value the purpose of a fiat currency breaks down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dadb1ef3c8442737c33426429ca37dd1", "text": "Are you trying to get someone to do your homework for you? This question has been answered repeatedly in the negative by everyone who actually studies the economy. Read Mundell-Flemming model, and learn this stuff. You can see why currency regimes like the Euro make sense from a theoretical stand point, but where flexible exchange rates are a welcome release valve for pressures. You obviously have never studied economics. Hyper inflation doesn't happen becuase of floating exhange rates. Hyperinflation happens when people lose faith in the governing body, regardless of who that is. You think political regimes won't change just because there is one currency? No, they will still spent 1.05 for every dollar they bring in taxes. Hyperinflation is not a problem of floating exchange rates, it doesn't follow from any causal relationship.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2923139f67bc06512a813a131913ad4a", "text": "\"The simplest answer would be: Because they can. Why charge less for something if people will pay more? One example are Apple products. While there the price number is not exactly the same in EUR and USD, they are so close that, effectively, the EUR product is more expensive. Many things go into a price. There might be reasons for products in the EU being more expensive to produce or distribute. Or people in the EU might be in general more willing to pay more for a certain product. In that case, a company would forgo profits when they offered it cheaper. Also, prices are relative. Is the USD price the \"\"correct\"\" one and the exchange rate should dictate what the EUR price is? Or vice versa?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6e427820d1bbbba763434732b3a1b8c", "text": "Yes, they're using it as a currency. What they actually have demand for is houses and Lambos, and if bitcoin wasn't available they'd be happy to do it in any other currency. When any other currency goes up it's because there's overall higher demand than supply for it, to buy things you can only buy in a particular currency. A very common example is government bonds of the issuing government for a currency. That's why when the Fed raises the interest rate, the US dollar goes up. It is because at a bond auction the government will only take US dollars so anyone that wants to buy some bonds needs to first buy US dollars. If the interest rate goes up, all things being equal those bonds are relatively more attractive than other countries bonds, and that change in demand increases the demand for the currency, which raises it's price. Note the key thing here - it needs to be something you can only buy (or at least, buy for the cheapest price) in a particular currency. If it's something you can buy with any currency, than that event generally doesn't impact the currency price. Although it's a very important food crop, if the price of rice goes up, it doesn't really impact the USD even though you can buy rice with USD. Here's the tricky part, what can you buy with bitcoin that you can't buy with any other currency?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d72158325951e5027d5bfbeec4c607cc", "text": "\"Currencies such as the dollar, the Euro, and most others are no longer tied to gold in any way. They are just paper that is worth what it's worth because everyone agrees to accept it. Previously, currencies used to be commonly tied to gold reserves, and could theoretically be \"\"cashed in\"\" for gold, although not usually as much as the currency denomination (i.e., gold on the open market tended to sell for higher prices than what the government would give you for it).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7962bbfe7144355cf969f63e0c8e8d93", "text": "\"1.) The US mint is a private business. There's your first flaw of any argument about currency before we talk further. 2.) That small percentage value of the penny \"\"not being worth your time\"\" is a huge fallacy. It might not be worth anything to him, but I generally would be intent on getting a few cents back that are due to me. Similarly, using his example of 3 cents adding 2 seconds to the transaction ends up at a rate of $54/hr. That's quite a bit of money to be considered. 3.) No machines take pennies. Fair enough. Not really the fault of the penny itself, but more so a fault of brash inflation. 4.) Supposing the penny does get removed, the axe gets held above the neck of the nickle inevitably. Then the dime, and so on. You'll also see a massive disruption in handling of accounting principles and tax rates due to being forced into /5 rates. All adjustable, yes, but it does cause a whole new mess of issues in it's own right. 5.) Lincoln's face has nothing to do with this argument. 25 seconds worth of video wasted (that's about 35 pennies worth).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb791a47443a2bf355524af78d2b3173", "text": "\"Many years ago you used to be able to purchase \"\"currency packs\"\" that were combined bundles of currencies from western Europe based on the number of days you would be spending in each country. The exchange rates on these were very favorable and they had minimal surcharges. With the rise of the euro I doubt these bundles are still available as I haven't seen them myself in about 10 years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7b16d8fd53d30ebcc15ef950ddf947f", "text": "I don't like paying the percentage on the supermarket coin counters, and don't feel like buying a coin counter so I have my own solution. I keep higher value coins for vending machines, parking meters etc, and lower value coins I put in charity boxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32fc8c8e41faa740aaa9a8f0a80711df", "text": "The collectible value of coins will probably increase with the underlying metal value. I'd collect coins for that reason and because I enjoy collecting them. I wouldn't recommend buying bags of rolled nickels or anything though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1b4070ae8f86c7d172defb39f9cd1a7", "text": "Rates are arrived at by the cumulative buying and selling on the foreign exchange market, much the same way that stock prices are arrived at. If there are more people wanting to buy dollars with euros, EUR/USD goes down. If more people want to buy euros with dollars, then EUR/USD goes up. The initial rate was about $1.18 per euro when it began trading on January 1st, 1999. It replaced the European Currency Unit at that time, which was a weighted basket of currencies of (more or less) the participating countries. You're correct about the printing press in the US and other countries. The exchange rates do reflect in part how much of a relative workout those printing presses get.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3679573689f2ba3aedab8a7292a9f419	Is my mortgage more likely to be sold if I pre-pay principal?	[ { "docid": "7d4ba7208ee4504c419e95dd85ca7fd8", "text": "\"There are two ways that mortgages are sold: The loan is collateralized and sold to investors. This allows the bank to free up money for more loans. Of course sometime the loan may be treated like in the game of hot potato nobody want s to be holding a shaky loan when it goes into default. The second way that a loan is sold is through the servicing of the loan. This is the company or bank that collects your monthly payments, and handles the disbursement of escrow funds. Some banks lenders never sell servicing, others never do the servicing themselves. Once the servicing is sold the first time there is no telling how many times it will be sold. The servicing of the loan is separate from the collateralization of the loan. When you applied for the loan you should have been given a Servicing Disclosure Statement Servicing Disclosure Statement. RESPA requires the lender or mortgage broker to tell you in writing, when you apply for a loan or within the next three business days, whether it expects that someone else will be servicing your loan (collecting your payments). The language is set by the US government: [We may assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your loan while the loan is outstanding.] [or] [We do not service mortgage loans of the type for which you applied. We intend to assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your mortgage loan before the first payment is due.] [or] [The loan for which you have applied will be serviced at this financial institution and we do not intend to sell, transfer, or assign the servicing of the loan.] [INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARER: Insert the date and select the appropriate language under \"\"Servicing Transfer Information.\"\" The model format may be annotated with further information that clarifies or enhances the model language.]\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0f4b1d614b494aa311c450e1e302f2d", "text": "It's not unusual/undesirable. If everyone prepaid their mortgage, banks would not like this, but we're in no danger of that :). Also, the amount you are pre-paying is not so significant as to make them pay special attention. In many cases when a borrower pre-pays, they will not continue to do so over the life of the loan since it's so easy to stop at any time, and the extra payments are voluntary. Depending on who originated the mortgate, it might be sold even more often than in your case. It's no longer commonplace for a bank to hold a mortgage to maturity, now that banks and other institutions have separated the origination of the loan from its servicing. It's likely that your mortgage was bundled with others through a process called securitization, and will be bought/sold based on the bank's need for liquitity or to balance out the maturity of its assets and liabilities (whether they need more cash now versus later), or based on the types of ways your bank has decided that it wants to make money versus farming out other types of business to others. What would substantially change the value of your mortgage to a bank is if it were performing (ie you are paying on time) but then became non-performing (ie you fall behind in your payments). It's also possible that if you have a very small mortgage or principal balance, that there is very little risk to the bank, and little difference between the present and future values of your loan, but banks don't typically make these types of transactions based on the characteristics of an individual loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dcc878a79104a3e26c4ed3ba82668fb", "text": "In a process called collateralization, your mortgage is combined with others to form a security that other can invest in. When done right, this process provides liquidity, more money to be lent for more loans. When done wrong, bad things happen. My mortgage happens to be held by the issuing bank. Yours was sold into such a pool of mortgages. One effect of this is the reselling of the servicing of the loan. I've had other mortgages that were sold every year, but I never paid ahead. With this bank, I'm on my fifth refinance, but the bank keeps the loan in house no matter what. I don't know if there's any correlation, it depends on the originating bank, in my opinion.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "072657906959afacef76be19931af359", "text": "If you're living in a market where some houses are going for $150K over asking, then you MUST buy before you sell. In a seller's market, you will get multiple offers on your current house when you decide to sell, it will sell for (well) over asking, and you can dictate possession dates. You do not need to worry about selling your own home, if you have a competent realtor. But buying a home is an entirely different story. You may struggle to find something affordable, and there may be multiple buyers each time you decide to make an offer. You may go through this cycle several times over many months before your offer is accepted. You should do this while living in your own home, with the comfort of knowing that you can sell your own home easily at any time, instead of the stress of an imminent closing date on your own home. Or worse, move into rented space or Malvolio's mom's house for months or a year while the market increases by 15% and the houses in your old area are now selling for $100K more than you sold for. Ouch, now you really can't afford to buy what you want, and you may end up buying something equivalent to what you used to own, for more, plus legal, realtor, and land transfer costs. If the closing dates don't align, then bridge. This will only end up costing a few hundred dollars, less than $1K including legal fees (the lawyer will also charge to handle this). But by buying before you sell, you'll easily make up that difference. This advice only applies to hot property markets. I'm not a realtor, just a guy living in the GTA who went through this process last year. Lost out on three offers over 10 months, then bought for asking price on fourth offer (very fortunate), then sold for $90K over asking, then bridged for 2 months. My realtor is awesome and made the process as stress free as it can be. Get a good realtor, start house hunting while preparing your own house for sale, and enjoy the process. Also you should negotiate with your realtor, they may be willing to reduce their commission on your sale if they are also representing you on the purchase. Good luck! P.S. Do not make a contingent offer, and do not accept one. Get your financing in place before you make an offer, and if you are concerned about inspection, you can also do that before the offer, if you act quickly. The inspection will cost ~$500, but it will increase the value of your offer by much more than that since you will be going in without conditions. I spent ~$1,000 on two property inspections on homes I lost out on, and I don't regret it. That is the cost of doing business. The other offers on the home I eventually bought were for significantly more than my offer, but they had conditions. I saved at least $40K by being condition free, and I only spent $1,500 on three property inspections. And, some people will just drop out of the multiple offer scenario when they learn that one of the buyers has done an inspection.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37fa30cf5414a80a1e2cc08de201436e", "text": "From Getting Rid of PMI: Per the federal Homeowners' Protection Act, you can ask that your PMI be canceled when you've paid down your mortgage to 80% of the loan, if you have a good record of payment and compliance with the terms of your mortgage, you make a written request, and you show that the value of the property hasn't gone down. What's more, when you've paid down your mortgage to 78% of the original loan, the law says that the lender must automatically cancel your PMI. (So in this case to prove it hasn't gone down, an appraisal is in order) But all of this doesn't answer the question. The PMI is a separate line item, once it's removed, your total monthly payment drops. You are welcome to keep it in, and indicate it should be a prepayment of principal, if that's your wish, but that's up to you, it's not automatic. In researching this the first time, I ran into an article How to Calculate PMI Costs in which an example is given where a 91% LTV $200K loan has a PMI cost of $1000/yr. So, the impact of not having that extra $20K or so is to pay what amount to an extra 5% on the last $20K of the loan. The PMI doesn't scale over time. When you are $10K away from 80% LTV, you still pay the $1K/yr. For this reason, if you absolutely must go over 80% LTV, I'd suggest shopping for a bank that will permit the excess to be a home equity loan. At least the payoff of that 2nd loan in totally in your control.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c97110c32f226e776d5bfe11a4844d3", "text": "I would strongly encourage you to either find specifically where in your written contract the handling of early/over payments are defined and post it for us to help you, or that you go and visit a licensed real estate attorney. Even at a ridiculously high price of 850 pounds per hour for a top UK law firm (and I suspect you can find a competent lawyer for 10-20% of that amount), it would cost you less than a year of prepayment penalty to get professional advice on what to do with your mortgage. A certified public accountant (CPA) might be able to advise you, as well, if that's any easier for you to find. I have the sneaking suspicion that the company representatives are not being entirely forthcoming with you, thus the need for outside advice. Generally speaking, loans are given an interest rate per period (such as yearly APR), and you pay a percentage (the interest) of the total amount of money you owe (the principle). So if you owe 100,000 at 5% APR, you accrue 5,000 in interest that year. If you pay only the interest each year, you'll pay 50,000 in interest over 10 years - but if you pay everything off in year 8, at a minimum you'd have paid 10,000 less in interest (assuming no prepayment penalties, which you have some of those). So paying off early does not change your APR or your principle amount paid, but it should drastically reduce the interest you pay. Amortization schedules don't change that - they just keep the payments even over the scheduled full life of the loan. Even with prepayment penalties, these are customarily billed at less than 6 months of interest (at the rate you would have payed if you kept the loan), so if you are supposedly on the hook for more than that again I highly suspect something fishy is going on - in which case you'd probably want legal representation to help you put a stop to it. In short, something is definitely and most certainly wrong if paying off a loan years in advance - even after taking into account pre-payment penalties - costs you the same or more than paying the loan off over the full term, on schedule. This is highly abnormal, and frankly even in the US I'd consider it scandalous if it were the case. So please, do look deeper into this - something isn't right!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85b29fb9f21e2f7238927cc9b7d31b6e", "text": "If you have good credit, you already know the rate -- the bank has it posted in the window. If you don't have good credit, tell the loan officer your score. Don't have them run your credit until you know that you're interested in that bank. Running an application or prequal kicks off the sales process, which gets very annoying very quickly if you are dealing with multiple banks. A few pointers: You're looking for a plain vanilla 30 year loan, so avoid mortgage brokers -- they are just another middleman who is tacking on a cost. Brokers are great when you need more exotic loans. Always, always stay away from mortgage brokers (or inspectors or especially lawyers) recommended by realtors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50f8deed2522263fddbfeed7c4d1f20d", "text": "Two principles in comparing different scenarios: 1) keep the two scenarios as equal as possible in amount and timing of payments; and 2) find the financial comparison at one particular point. So, your car loan, $10,000 for 35 months at 8% compounded monthly means you're paying $321.29 Suppose you make the switch and keep on paying the same, mortgage and $321.29 for the 35 months (see 1, above) Those extra payments, continued for 35 months at your mortgage rate of 5.59%, will pay off a mortgage of $10,354.10, which will more than pay off the $10,000 you added to the mortgage In other words, making the switch will benefit you to the tune of 354.10 as of the day of the switch. You could ask the mortgage company to give you the $10,000 and the $354.10, and all your payments and amortization would stay the same... (see 2 above) Of course, this is pretty much what Joe Taxpayer said...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "252746493a0e4309e5f8a4c89e7e6467", "text": "I'll preface this with saying that I'm not a finance or real estate professional, this is just how I understand the situation and what I'm doing: We just got a 30year/FHA mortgage, there's no prepayment penalty, and no fees associated with paying it biweekly. In fact (Wells Fargo), while the payments get withdrawn biweekly, they don't actually post to the mortgage until there's enough for a full payment. So essentially here are the benefits I'm realizing:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b03915b188d6fcb35d4155487adbc78c", "text": "In the US, our standard fixed rate mortgages would show no difference. My payment is calculated to be due on the 1st of each month. When I first got a mortgage, I was intrigued by this question, and experimented. I paid early, on the 15th, 2 weeks early, and looked at my next statement. It matched the amortization, exactly. Mortgages at the time were over 12%, so I'd imagine having seen the benefit of that 1/2% for the early payment. Next I paid on the last day before penalty, in effect, 2 weeks late. I expected to see extra interest accrue, again, just a bit, but enough to see when compared to the amortization table. Again, no difference, the next statement showed the same value to the penny.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86ef9962360668eba7a9c6caf07a7265", "text": "Generally speaking, no they won't. In this case, though I haven't done it myself, I was recommended to put the mortgage on the real estate after it's been leased out and has a contract on it. Then, yes, they will use it for that. But, ex-ante don't expect any bank to count on income from it because, at that point, there's zero guarantee you'll get it leased, and even if you do, at what rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a81f6d01bbf7f9836f6b5bbd2aa93e7b", "text": "\"add the interest for the next 5 payments and divide that by how much you paid on the principal during that time Let's see - on a $200K 6% loan, the first 5 months is $4869. Principal reduction is $1127. I get 4.32 or 432%. But this is nonsense, you divide the interest over the mortgage balance, and get 6%. You only get those crazy numbers by dividing meaningless ratios. The fact that early on in a mortgage most of the payment goes to interest is a simple fact of the the 30 year nature of amortizing. You are in control, just add extra principal to the payment, if you wish. This idea sounds like the Money Merge Account peddled by UFirst. It's a scam if ever there was one. I wrote about it extensively on my site and have links to others as well. Once you get to this page, the first link is for a free spreadsheet to download, it beats MMA every time and shows how prepaying works, no smoke, no mirrors. The second link is a 65 page PDF that compiles nearly all my writing on this topic as I was one of the finance bloggers doing what I could to expose this scam. I admit it became a crusade, I went as far as buying key word ads on google to attract the search for \"\"money merge account\"\" only to help those looking to buy it find the truth. In the end, I spent a few hundred dollars but saved every visitor the $3500 loss of this program. No agent who dialoged with me in public could answer my questions in full, as they fell back on \"\"you need to believe in it.\"\" I have no issue with faith-based religion, it actually stands to reason, but mortgages are numbers and there's order to them. If you want my $3500, you should know how your system works. Not one does, or they would know it was a scam. Nassim Taleb, author of \"\"The Black Swan\"\" offered up a wonderful quote, \"\"if you see fraud, and do not say 'fraud,' you are a fraud.\"\" The site you link to isn't selling a product, but a fraudulent idea. What's most disturbing to me is that the math to disprove his assertion is not complex, not beyond grade school arithmetic. Update 2015 - The linked \"\"rule of thumb\"\" is still there. Still wrong of course. Another scam selling software to do this is now promoted by a spin off of UFirst, called Worth Unlimited. Same scam, new name.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "305f86774618127594c649a2d814137d", "text": "Your calculations are correct. It is likely that the bank's software has a rounding error. In effect, either your bank is overstating your interest by eight cents per month, or your bank is insisting that you prepay your principal by eight cents per month. If the bank's ongoing interest calculations are correct, your final payment will be slightly smaller (because of the prepaid principal, and because of compound interest on those prepayments). I have performed similar calculations for my mortgages over the years, and except upon early payoff in the middle of the month, I have always matched my banks' calculations to the penny. Ironically, this means that my banks' formulas are a bit weird: After making these adjustments, even my calculations for the mid-month payoff matched to the penny.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7eff9b05f079615ac6d4d7cee02d6c73", "text": "It's important because it shows that the amount you owe does not decrease linearly with each payment, and you gain equity as a correspondingly slower rate at the beginning of the loan and faster at the end. This has to be figured in when considering refinancing, or when you sell the place and pay off the mortgage. It also shows why making extra payments toward principal (if your loan permits doing so) is so advantageous -- unlike a normal payment that lowers the whole curve by a notch, reducing the length of time over which interest is due and thus saving you money in the long run. (Modulo possible lost-opportnity costs, of course.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a74ce917b8bba32d778ccb34fe977c9", "text": "Depending on your bank you may receive an ACH discount for doing automatic withdrawals from a deposit account at that bank. Now, this depends on your bank and you need to do independent research on that topic. As far as dictating what your extra money goes towards each month (early payments, principal payments, interest payments) you need to discuss that with your bank. I'm sure it's not too difficult to find. In my experience most banks, so long as you didn't sign a contract on your mortgage where you're penalized for sending additional money, will apply extra money toward early payments, and not principal. I would suggest calling them. I know for my student loans I have to send a detailed list of my loans and in what order I want my extra payments toward each, otherwise it will be considered an early payment, or it will be spread evenly among them all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5694e32c676d48aaca4d8e2f863eaf4d", "text": "If you selected a mortgage that allows additional payments to be credited against the principal rather than as early payment of normal installments, them yes, doing so will reduce the actual cost of the loan. You may have to explicitly instruct the bank to use the money this way each time, if prepay is their default assumption. Check with your lender, and/or read the terms of your mortgage, to find out if this is allowed and how to do it. If your mortgage doesn't allow additional payments against the principal, you may want to consider refinancing into a mortgage which does, or into a mortgage with shorter term and higher monthly payments, to obtain the same lower cost (modulo closing costs on the new mortgage; run the numbers.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "669d187e2d8ad7563511763431a511af", "text": "The simple answer is to get a residential mortgage first, and once you have secured the loan, do whatever you want. The bank only cares about what risk they are taking on the day of closing and won't care afterwards so long as you pay the mortgage on time. Residential mortgages are going to give you better rates than rentals, generally.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6378d779e2f23d5f7d55919906b65f9", "text": "The iron-clad rule of investing is that risk and return are directly related. It is impossible to get a higher return than you are getting without putting principal at risk. Your emergency fund should be in cash, preferably in government insured cash (like a savings account). The best you could probably do is laddered 3-month CDs. That way, you could cash them out, one per month, as they mature.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3ed2267526ec9ee34bbca1fa286c5ecf	What should I do to pick the right consultant to open offshore bank account	[ { "docid": "8b7e55634dda13f3c399e4e874ddf6c4", "text": "\"It is unusual to need a consultant to open a bank account for you, and I would also be concerned that perhaps the consultant could take the money and do nothing, or continue to demand various sums of money for \"\"expenses\"\" like permits, licenses, identity check, etc. until you give up. Some of the more accepted ways to open a bank account are: A: Call up an established bank and follow their instructions to open a personal account . Make sure you are calling on a real bank, one that has been around a while. Hints: has permanent locations, in the local phone book, and has shares traded on a national stock exchange. Call the bank directly, don't use a number given to you by a 3rd party consultant, as it may be a trick... Discuss on the phone and find out if you can open an account by mail or if you need to visit in person. B: Create a company or branch office in the foreign country, assuming this is for business or investing. and open an account by appointing someone (like a lawyer or accountant or similar professional) in the foreign country to represent the company to open an account in person. If you are a US citizen, you will want to ask your CPA/accountant/tax lawyer about the TD F 90-22.1 Foreign Account Bank Report form, and the FATCA Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. There can be very large fines for not making the required reports. The requirements to open a bank account have become more strict in many countries, so don't be surprised if they will not open an account for a foreigner with no local address, if that is your situation.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c04235b74285a44bf3c488e03b1adb7e", "text": "\"Wyoming is a good state for this. It is inexpensive and annual compliance is minimal. Although Delaware has the best advertising campaign, so people know about it, the reality is that there are over 50 states/jurisdictions in the United States with their own competitive incorporation laws to attract investment (as well as their own legislative bodies that change those laws), so you just have to read the laws to find a state that is favorable for you. What I mean is that whatever Delaware does to get in the news about its easy business laws, has been mimicked and done even better by other states by this point in time. And regarding Delaware's Chancery Court, all other states in the union can also lean on Delaware case law, so this perk is not unique to Delaware. Wyoming is cheaper than Delaware for nominal presence in the United States, requires less information then Delaware, and is also tax free. A \"\"registered agent\"\" can get you set up and you can find one to help you with the address dilemma. This should only cost $99 - $200 over the state fees. An LLC does not need to have an address in the United States, but many registered agents will let you use their address, just ask. Many kinds of businesses still require a bank account for domestic and global trade. Many don't require any financial intermediary any more to receive payments. But if you do need this, then opening a bank account in the United States will be more difficult. Again, the registered agent or lawyer can get a Tax Identification Number for you from the IRS, and this will be necessary to open a US bank account. But it is more likely that you will need an employee or nominee director in the United States to go in person to a bank and open an account. This person needs to be mentioned in the Operating Agreement or other official form on the incorporation documents. They will simply walk into a bank with your articles of incorporation and operating agreement showing that they are authorized to act on behalf of the entity and open a bank account. They then resign, and this is a private document between the LLC and the employee. But you will be able to receive and accept payments and access the global financial system now. A lot of multinational entities set up subsidiaries in a number of countries this way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73d2f348f3576d5ac88d7a304f9538a9", "text": "You want to bank with HSBC: From: http://www.offshore.hsbc.com/1/2/international/foreign-exchange-currency/foreign-exchange/faqs HSBC Bank International does not charge ‘commission’, therefore offering 0% commission on foreign currency exchange transactions", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcde0f9527d86dec009f5a62cee3b5d7", "text": "It sounds like your looking for something like an offshore bank (e.g. an anonymous Swiss bank account). These don't really exist anymore. I think you should just open a small bank account in your home country (preferably one the reimburses your ATM fees, like Charles Schwab in the US). If it's a small amount of money, the authorities probably won't care and they won't be able to give you large penalties anyways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e7f88b56677a917045c41db97d6ced0", "text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0239db99a14304f9c2d2c4e5f0e8cc2e", "text": "\"We use Cater Allen for our business banking (recommended/introduced by our accountants so we've saved the standard \"\"minimum funds per month\"\" limit) which was set up all remotely - our accountants sent us the forms (which you can get from Cater Allen's site), we photocopied the identity documents (driving licence etc) and sent them off. Within a couple of weeks we had the account open. Cater Allen hasn't got any physical branches, so that's \"\"one way\"\" of working around the \"\"come into a branch\"\" solution - pick a bank without branches! Girobank (which became Alliance and Leicester Business Banking and then became part of Santander) used to allow all account creations remotely - but that was back in the 90s and I've got no idea if Santander still do. Since you've setup an Ltd company, you are probably looking for an accountant too (even if it just to do your year end or payroll) - ask them for their recommendations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eaa10cf2c07d5fc073087e68ff8db674", "text": "That your asking is a good first step towards taking control of your future. But truly, you must seek the advice of a personal consultant that is much more in tune with your finances that anyone out here in the public will be. You can get this type of advice locally, or if you want something online, I suggest oDesk or something similar to find a large pool of people and to efficiently find the right person for suited for your situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "573e48e9b9d4cbbfa1dee18393f88dd7", "text": "The best way is for X to work as Independent consultant fro c.com from India by raising monthly invoices for the work done. This will avoid the complications and paperwork associated by registering a LLC in US by XF and then employing X as independent consultant in India. X may need to fill out W8-BEN forms so that there is no withholding in US Edit: Independent consultant means without having to register any legal entity either in India or in US. There are no legal regulations in US or in India to hire an independent contractor / consultant. There maybe internal policy of C.com not to have independent consultants. Payments can be made via transfer to Bank account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0181b5b73cc89e56d3146f077981403", "text": "You need a find a financial planner that will create a plan for you for a fixed fee. They will help you determine the best course of action taking into account the pension, the 403B, and any other sources of income you have, or will have. They will know how to address the risk that you have that that particular pension. They will help you determine how to invest your money to produce the type of retirement you want, while making sure you are likely to not outlive your portfolio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "662147c9f14c8bfc64a617474be2e39f", "text": "This is the correct advice. If you aren't part of their recruiting network, AKA alum of a school they go to, you're odds are going to be very low. The only other path would be if you are basically top 5% of your profession skill wise. Normally this would mean an advanced degree, lots of work experience, etc. If you don't have an MBA with a finance focus, it seems unlikely to me that they would hire you for any finance related consulting. But computer engineering consulting seems reasonable. Based on the brief info you have given, I would say you need to figure out what they want, and then take the steps to accumulate those skills.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "659d1634090f51bdf8cbd058f18116fd", "text": "One can never be too cautious when when choosing a financial adviser. For example, has the company your adviser claims to represent ever been sanctioned by the local financial authorities? Does your adviser reside in the country in which he purports to operate? Have you thoroughly researched his background? It is also important to bear in mind what venues a company uses for advertising - if the company resorts to advertising by spamming, then their overall business practices are likely unethical and this could lead to trouble down the line. Finally, one should also research how the company's clientele has been built up. Was it through word of mouth or was the client data acquired by other means?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7b878e6400b862413de573f3e40ce21", "text": "If you don't know how to evaluate funds and are looking for someone to help you make good investment decisions, then you want a financial advisor. My suggestion is to look for one that 1) doesn't try to sell you insurance first (since insurance is an expense, not an investment), 2) can explain to you the the relationship between risk and return (and what mix is right for you) and 3) recommends funds that have good demonstrated returns after fees have been removed. If you plan to pick your own funds and just want a transaction broker, go with one of the free/cheap online discount brokers. Many let you invest in hundreds of different funds, so look for brokers with the cheapest fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aae1e5e2604e7ef112e1abe3a414971f", "text": "IBAN is enough within SEPA and it should be so for your bank as well. Tell them to join our decade, or change bank. I received bank transfers from other continents to my SEPA account in the past and I don't remember ever needing to say more than my IBAN and BIC. Banks can ask all sorts of useless information, but if your bank doesn't have a standard (online) form for the operation then it probably means you're going to spend a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90fead46e9d8314e5f383a09a89b73e6", "text": "I've not gotten an answer so far. Since I've started my search for a new financial planner here are the criteria I am using:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2eb74f0ef6f1a3b3531f7f79a1a0b978", "text": "See this website. In my opinion you should physically exist there to open your account.The bank needs to fulfill all requirements such as checking your identity, taking your signatures for future transactions etc. However, there might be some exceptions as Banking industry works pretty much on personal relations and money power. Also check these links: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=722141 http://askville.amazon.com/open-bank-account-abroad/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7004217 and http://www.talkgold.com/forum/r18761-.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4204f26bc88bab658ce2be226976e79", "text": "\"Since I, personally, agree with the investment thesis of Peter Schiff, I would take that sum and put it with him in a managed account, and leave it there. I'm not sure how to find a firm that you like the investment strategy of. I think that it's too complicated to do as a side thing. Someone needs to be spending a lot of time researching various instruments and figuring out what is undervalued or what is exposed to changing market trends or whatever. I basically just want to give my money to someone and say \"\"I agree with your investment philosophy, let me pay you to manage my money, too.\"\" No one knows who is right, of course. I think Schiff is right, so that's where I would put the amount of money you're talking about. If you disagree with his investment philosophy, this doesn't really make any sense to do. For that amount of money, though, I think firms would be willing to sit down with you and sell you their services. You could ask them how they would diversify this money given the goals that you have for it, and pick one that you agree with the most.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ba530ca262290048e55b156665487e0e	Importance of dividend yield when evaluating a stock?	[ { "docid": "0959c99d79a684031f47071d3fa756db", "text": "But I wish to know why the parameter is dividend/market price rather than just 'dividend'? What 'extra' info you can uncover by looking at dividend/market price that you cannot get from 'dividend'? Consider two stocks A and B. A offers a dividend of $1 per year. B offers a dividend of $2 per year. Let's remove all complications aside and assume that this trend continues. If you were to buy each of these stocks you will get the following amounts over its life (assumed infinity for simplicity): cash flows from A = $1/(0.04) = $25, assuming risk free is 4% per annum cash flows from B = $2/(0.04) = $50, assuming risk free is 4% per annum The price you buy them at is an important factor to consider because let's say if A was trading for $10 and B for $60, then A would look like a profitable nvestment while B won't. Of course, this is a very simplistic view. Dividend rates are not constant and many companies pose a significant risk of going bust but this should help illustrate the general idea behind the D/P ratio. P.S.:- The formula I have used is one for computing the NPV of a perpetuity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "492db3c18446fccb7a5f0bfc2ba81784", "text": "The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds. I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest. Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "709d76dc519d425b8b5da7e48547fd43", "text": "\"Dividend yields can also reflect important information about the company's status. For example, a company that has never lowered or stopped paying dividends is a \"\"strong\"\" company because it has the cash/earnings power to maintain its dividend regardless of the market. Ideally, a company should pay dividends for at least 10 years for an investor to consider the company as a \"\"consistent payer.\"\" Furthermore, when a company pays dividend, it generally means that it has more cash than it can profitably reinvest in the business, so companies that pay dividends tend to be older but more stable. An important exception is REIT's and their ilk - to avoid taxation, these types of funds must distribute 90% of their earnings to their shareholders, so they pay very high dividends. Just look at stocks like NLY or CMO to get an idea. The issue here, however, is two fold: So a high dividend can be great [if it has been paid consistently] or risky [if the company is new or has a short payment history], and dividends can also tell us about what the company's status is. Lastly, taxation on dividend income is higher than taxation on capital gains, but by reinvesting dividends you can avoid this tax and lower your potential capital gain amount, thus limiting taxes. http://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/papers/highdiv_research.pdf is an excellent paper on dividend yields and investing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70895340e89e2ed79c06404366e1c4f7", "text": "\"Probably the most important thing in evaluating a dividend yield is to compare it to ITSELF (in the past). If the dividend yield is higher than it has been in the past, the stock may be cheap. If it is lower, the stock may be expensive. Just about every stock has a \"\"normal\"\" yield for itself. (It's zero for non-dividend paying stocks.) This is based on the stock's perceived quality, growth potential, and other factors. So a utility that normally yields 5% and is now paying 3% is probably expensive (the price in the denominator is too high), while a growth stock that normally yields 2% and is now yielding 3% (e.g. Intel or McDonald'sl), may be cheap.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1d75ffbcf884babd71bbaa5d04df609", "text": "Dividends yield and yield history are often neglected, but are very important factors that you should consider when looking at a stock for long-term investment. The more conservative portion of my portfolio is loaded up with dividend paying stocks/MLPs like that are yielding 6-11% income. In an environment when deposit and bond yields are so poor, they are a great way to earn reasonably safe income.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "472d859ac9e683dca392918550d040e1", "text": "I had read a book about finance, and it had mentioned that you can gain big profits from investing in the best companies in the most boring markets, like the funeral business for example. These markets are slow growing, but the companies pay a good dividend. Many books recommend investing in dividends because of the compound growth and stable income. Remember that at the end of the day, you should put the same amount of research into buying a stock as you would buying the entire company. With that being said, you may find a great company that may or may not offer dividends, but it should not be of great significance since you feel you are buying into a great company at a fair price. Though dividend growth is a great tool to use to see if a company is doing well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67bc3979d4e8d6e5a329e82b5f8ab282", "text": "Join me for a look at the Quote for SPY. A yield of 1.82%. So over a year's time, your $100K investment will give you $1820 in dividends. The Top 10 holdings show that Apple is now 3% of the S&P. With a current dividend of 2.3%. Every stock in the S&P has its own different dividend. (Although the zeros are all the same. Not every stock has a dividend.) The aggregate gets you to the 1.82% current dividend. Dividends are accumulated and paid out quarterly, regardless of which months the individual stocks pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88bad5cf03d3a2c8d04785fcf5589fec", "text": "\"One way to value companies is to use a Dividend discount model. In substance, it consists in estimating future dividends and calculating their present value. So it is a methodology which considers that an equity is similar to a bond and estimates its current value based on future cash flows. A company may not be paying dividends now, but because its future earnings prospects are good may pay some in the future. In that case the DDM model will give a non-zero value to that stock. If on the other hand you think a company won't ever make any profits and therefore never pay any dividends, then it's probably worth 0! Take Microsoft as an example - it currently pays ~3% dividend per annum. The stock has been listed since 1986 and yet it did not pay any dividends until 2003. But the stock has been rising regularly since the beginning because people had \"\"priced in\"\" the fact that there was a high chance that the company would become very profitable - which proved true in the long term (+60,000% including dividends since the IPO!).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91b720167fd3efe4a248785f4df1a208", "text": "\"duffbeer's answers are reasonable for the specific question asked, but it seems to me the questioner is really wanting to know what stocks should I buy, by asking \"\"do you simply listen to 'experts' and hope they are right?\"\" Basic fundamental analysis techniques like picking stocks with a low PE or high dividend yield are probably unlikely to give returns much above the average market because many other people are applying the same well-known techniques.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3c2a7eda895cea7c4aa4b482fc9f5e9", "text": "Hey desquinbnt & pontsone, I had an explanation written up about Share and Bond evaluation and in which, one share evaluation technique utilizes the P/E ratio - hence I explained it. Have a read, if you'd want me to go more in depth, let me know! :) http://letslearnfinance.net/2012/06/09/introduction-to-bonds-and-share-valuation/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35ec6ed1d2beb27b9ab3d584c9de8470", "text": "Dividend yield is a tough thing to track because it's a moving target. Dividends are paid periodically the yield is calculated based on the stock price when the dividend is declared (usually, though some services may update this more frequently). I like to calculate my own dividend by annualizing the dividend payment divided by my cost basis per share. As an example, say you have shares in X, Co. X issues a quarterly dividend of $1 per share and the share price is $100; coincidentally this is the price at which you purchased your shares. But a few years goes by and now X issues it's quarterly dividend of $1.50 per share, and the share price is $160. However your shares only cost you $100. Your annual yield on X is 6%, not the published 3.75%. All of this is to say that looking back on dividend yields is somewhat similar to nailing jello to the wall. Do you look at actual dividends paid through the year divided by share price? Do you look at the annualized dividend at the time of issue then average those? The stock price will fluctuate, that will change the yield; depending on where you bought your stock, your actual yield will vary from the published amount as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b630929af30262fb03a36642052d7bd0", "text": "Stock prices are set by the market - supply and demand. See Apple for example, which is exactly the company you described: tons of earnings, zero dividends. The stock price goes up and down depending on what happens with the company and how investors feel about it, and it can happen that the total value of the outstanding stock shares will be less than the value of the underlying assets of the company (including the cash resulted from the retained earnings). It can happen, also, that if the investors feel that the stock is not going to appreciate significantly, they will vote to distribute dividends. Its not the company's decision, its the board's. The board is appointed by the shareholders, which is exactly why the voting rights are important.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c0a6a7b35ac9112eed32eb54bc897d7", "text": "Ex-Dividend Price Behavior of Common Stocks would be a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and University of Minnesota if you want a source for some data. Abstract This study examines common stock prices around ex-dividend dates. Such price data usually contain a mixture of observations - some with and some without arbitrageurs and/or dividend capturers active. Our theory predicts such mixing will result in a nonlinear relation between percentage price drop and dividend yield - not the commonly assumed linear relation. This prediction and another important prediction of theory are supported empirically. In a variety of tests, marginal price drop is not significantly different from the dividend amount. Thus, over the last several decades, one-for-one marginal price drop have been an excellent (average) rule of thumb.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b69eea97ab6432c7cde802d6fd58942", "text": "Dividend yield is not the only criteria for stock selection. Companies past performance, management, past deals, future expansion plans, and debt equity ratio should be considered. I would also like to suggest you that one should avoid making any investment in the companies that are directly affected by frequent changes in regulations released by government. All the above mentioned criteria are important for your decision as they make an impact on your investment and can highly affect the profits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce", "text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adb62c59688d717c78ad88e05c417a2b", "text": "\"Is evaluating stocks just a loss of time if the stock is traded very much? Not at all! Making sound investment decisions based on fundamental analysis of companies will help you to do decide whether a given company is right for you and your risk appetite. Investing is not a zero-sum game, and you can achieve a positive long-term (or short-term, depending on what you're after) outcome for yourself without compromising your ability to sleep at night if you take the time to become acquainted with the companies that you are investing in. How can you ensure that your evaluation is more precise than the market ones which consists of the evaluation of thousands of people and professionals? For the average individual, the answer is often simply \"\"you probably cannot\"\". But you don't have to set the bar that high - what you can do is ensure that your evaluation gives you a better understanding of your investment and allows you to better align it with your investment objectives. You don't have to beat the professionals, you just have to lose less money than you would by paying them to make the decision for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "275df9312e040d3309fae20aff051c75", "text": "Technically you should take the quarterly dividend yield as a fraction, add one, take the cube root, and subtract one (and then multiple by the stock price, if you want a dollar amount per share rather than a rate). This is to account for the fact that you could have re-invested the monthly dividends and earned dividends on that reinvestment. However, the difference between this and just dividing by three is going to be negligible over the range of dividend rates that are realistically paid out by ordinary stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51a19c3ec2b20ff8db1f6607bf091252", "text": "I would say that the answer is yes. Investors may move on purchasing a stock as a result of news that a stock is set to pay out their dividend. It would be interesting to analyze the trend based on a company's dividend payouts over 10 or so years to see what/how this impacts the market value of a given company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76a1ddda269ce2c42c5770630688753b", "text": "Two of the main ways that investors benefit financially from a stock are dividends and increases in the price of the stock. In the example as described, the benefits came primarily from dividends, leaving less benefits to be realized in terms of an increase in the value of the company. Another way to put that is that the company paid its profits to shareholders in the form of a dividend, instead of accumulating that as an increase in the value of the company. The company could have chosen to take those profits and reinvest them in growing the business, which would lead to lower dividends but (hopefully) an increase in the valuation of the stock, but they chose to pay dividends instead. This still rewards the investors, but share prices stay low.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6080f06d854becc8d455196ebab574c5", "text": "Price doesn't mean anything. Price is simply total value (market capitalization) divided by number of shares. Make sure you consider historical dividends when hunting for big yields. It's very possible that the data you're pulling is only the annualized yield on the most recent dividend payment. Typically dividends are declared in dollar terms. The total amount of the dividend to be issued is then divided by the number of shares and paid out. Companies rarely (probably never but rarely to avoid the peanut gallery comments about the one company that does this) decide dividend payments based on some proportion of the stock price. Between company A and company B paying approximately the same historical yield, I'd look at both companies to make sure neither is circling the tank. If both look strong, I'd probably buy a bit of both. If one looks terrible buy the other one. Don't pick based on the price.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
79e51ceb5778714e1aa5f8c9e88726fa	Buying a car and learning to drive versus paying up study loans	[ { "docid": "00898fcd7b8859f9e0eda121c1e97619", "text": "Welcome to Money.SE. It appears there's public transportation to get you to work? And the area by your house is walkable? i.e. you and your wife can get groceries and other needs by walking. If it will take 5 years to pay the loans even without a car, how long if you get one? Will you even be able to afford the payments? There's not enough detail here except to say that all purchases aside from true needs have a cost/reward to consider. Whatever the car's total cost is, will it add that much pleasure to your life? People in cities with great transportation save quite a bit on the expenses a car brings. Personal anecdote - Mom lives in a city. She never drives out of the city. Ever. Between insurance, maintenance, and gas, even with low miles, she spends $3000/yr. Once per week, she drives 1500 ft (.3mi) each way to the grocery store. Once every month or 2 to a mall 6 miles away. She can walk and groceries delivered for free. In the end, she spends $250/mo for the feeling of freedom. I get that. When I am 70+, as she is, I will gladly pay car service the $20 to drive me around. You are young, and need to sit with your partner (your wife is your partner in the business of running the family finances, or so I hope) and decide if the benefit is worth the cost. How does she take the kids to a doctor? How do you go out to dinner?", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "690baaae183a17282f2f9bf2df37ed7a", "text": "If you're not worried about making the car loan payments, why would you want to pay off a loan that is not charging you any interest? Pay off the interest bearing student loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dbacdfc45f0f936cc1fe6137cec4fab", "text": "The only way this suggestion works is if you can realize a higher rate of return on the investment than the payoff of the loan. There's no guarantee of that, so it can be a risky strategy from the standpoint that you'll end up paying more for the car when all is said and done.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04b413cc5f63dcc003d781aea221c5de", "text": "NO, you pay off the Highest interest charging accounts first. The zero interest loan should be the Last one you pay off. Basically payoff your student loan and put the extra money to the car loan", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51866e5ddfe886708561f21f4af9113d", "text": "Tl;dr by anecdata I paid for my master's degree from investments/savings with a HELOC backstop It appears you don't have the 62k cash needed for tuition and living expenses so your decision is between financing a degree by selling your investments or a loan. Ultimately this comes down to the yes/no sell decision on the investments. Some things to consider:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fdc4efbcfddc3f31cecd99cf187ecf3", "text": "The fluctuation of interest rates during the next year could easily dwarf the savings this attempt to improve your credit score will have; or the reverse is true. Will the loan improve your score enough to make a difference? It will not change the number of months old your oldest account is. It will increase the breadth of your accounts. Applying for the car loan will result in a short term decrease in the score because of the hard pull. The total impact will be harder to predict. A few points either way will generally not have an impact on your rate. You will also notice the two cores in your question differ by more than 30 points. You can't control which number the lender will use. You also have to realize the number differs every day depending on when they pull it that month. The addition of a car loan, assuming you still have the loan when you buy the house, will not have a major impact on your ability to get afford the home mortgage. The bank cares about two numbers regarding monthly payments: the amount of your mortgage including principal, interest, taxes and insurance; and the amount of all other debt payments: car loan, school loans, credit cards. The PITI number should be no more than 28%-33% of your monthly income; the other payments no more than 10%. If the auto loan payments fit in the 10% window, then the amount of money you can spend each month on the mortgage will not be impacted. If it is too large, then they will want to see a smaller amount of your income to go to PITI. If you buy the car, either by cash or by loan, after you apply for the mortgage they will be concerned because you are impacting directly numbers they are using to evaluate your financial health. I have experienced a delay because the buyer bought a car the week before closing. The biggest impact on your ability to get the loan is the greater than 20% down payment, Assuming you can still do that if you pay cash for the car. Don't deplete your savings to get to the 50% down payment level. Keep money for closing costs, moving expenses, furnishing, plus other emergencies. Make it clear that you can easily cover the 20% level, and are willing to go higher to make the loan numbers work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "336aa42c53d72c72b5139be22607f652", "text": "You may not have a good choice until you start that job. $2,000 is awfully low for a car, so it could be very risky. But you may not be able to get a loan until you start the new job. I would talk to a bank or credit union to get an idea of how much, if anything, you could borrow at this time. If you have a letter offering you the job that might help to get a loan. There are dealers who will finance a very cheap used car for anybody, but that kind of deal is likely to be at a very high interest rate and should be avoided. You could wind up with a debt and no car. One other possibility is to have a co-signer, such as a parent or other relative. That could make getting a car loan easy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "509f6ff2ce216cbcf9f81b0460679e57", "text": "So you want to buy a car but have no money saved up.... That's going to be hard!! I'd suggest you get a part-time job, save up and buy a used car. Even with the minimum wage pay in the U.S., if you are in the U.S., you could save up and buy a car in less than a month. This route would be the quickest way for you to get a car but it would also teach you the responsibility of having one since it appears you have never owned a car before. Now the car will most definitely not be fancy or look like the cars that your peer's parents bought but at least it will get you from point A to point B. I'd look on Craigslist or your local neighborhood for cars that have not moved in a while or have for sale signs. Bring a mechanically inclined friend with you and contact the owner and explain them your situation. There are nice people out there that would give you deep discounts based on the fact that you are a student trying to get by. Now you have to get registration and insurance. There are many insurance companies that give discounts to students as well who have good GPAs and driving records. If you happen to get a car for a good deal, take good car of it. Once you graduate and further your career, you can resell it for a profit. I also would not suggest you get any loans for a car given your situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3308e4c8f1bb1711105dc3cb749bb0b", "text": "Here's my take: 1) Having a car loan and paying it on time helps build credit. Not as much as having credit cards (and keeping them paid or carrying balance just enough to be reported and then paying it), but it counts. 2) Can't you set in your bank, not the lender, something to pay the car automagically for you? Then you will be paying it on time without having to think on it. 3) As others said, do read the fine print.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d280f9654cc7e6f9132494b19bc1d4f", "text": "Not long after college in my new job I bought a used car with payments, I have never done that since. I just don't like having a car payment. I have bought every car since then with cash. You should never borrow money to buy a car There are several things that come into play when buying a car. When you are shopping with cash you tend to be more conservative with your purchases look at this Study on Credit card purchases. A Dunn & Bradstreet study found that people spend 12-18% more when using credit cards than when using cash. And McDonald's found that the average transaction rose from $4.50 to $7.00 when customers used plastic instead of cash. I would bet you if you had $27,000 dollars cash in your hand you wouldn't buy that car. You'd find a better deal, and or a cheaper car. When you finance it, it just doesn't seem to hurt as bad. Even though it's worse because now you are paying interest. A new car is just insanity unless you have a high net worth, at least seven figures. Your $27,000 car in 5 years will be worth about $6500. That's like striking a match to $340 dollars a month, you can't afford to lose that much money. Pay Cash If you lose your job, get hurt, or any number of things that can cost you money or reduce your income, it's no problem with a paid for car. They don't repo paid for cars. You have so much more flexibility when you don't have payments. You mention you have 10k in cash, and a $2000 a month positive cash flow. I would find a deal on a 8000 - 9000 car I would not buy from a dealer. Sell the car you have put that money with the positive cash flow and every other dime you can get at your student loans and any other debt you have, keep renting cheap keep the college lifestyle (broke) until you are completely out of debt. Then I would save for a house. Finally I would read this Dave Ramsey book, if I would have read this at your age, I would literally be a millionaire by now, I'm 37. Don't buy from a dealer Find a private sale car that you can get a deal on, pay less than Kelly Blue Book. Pay a little money $50 - 75 to have an automotive technician to check it out for you and get a car fax, to make sure there are no major problems. I have worked in the automotive industry for 20 + years and you rarely get a good deal from a dealer. “Everything popular is wrong.” Oscar Wilde", "title": "" }, { "docid": "298a3f25846f5a776770998f3b63329e", "text": "Don't let the tail of credit score wag the dog of prudent financial planning. If you have a sufficient emergency fund in addition to the car cost, then buying the car for cash is to my mind a better plan. But if the car purchase would deplete your emergency fund, then I'd go for the loan. Cash in hand gives you optionality that can be very valuable when things go wrong. And credit will be withdrawn at exactly the most painful moment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5bd49da7dc83886ed33c5b5d84943b4", "text": "\"I would actually disagree with MrChrister on this. You can afford yourself the car in this price range paid cash. I don't know how exactly you spend your income, but from my experience, in expensive California, saving $20K a year from $70K income with $800/mo rent is feasible. Having a loan on your credit report which is paid on time and in full will definitely help you rebuilding your credit. Your calculations re the costs of the loan are based on the assumption that you're going to keep the loan for the whole period. Don't do that. See #1 - you can repay this loan much quicker than the 3 years it should originally have been. 6 months of the loan which is then paid off will do marvels to your credit report and credit score. Yes, it is going to cost you some, but in your particular case I would argue that its worth it. You're an adult now, you need credit cards, you'll need a mortgage at some point, you need to rent a place to live - all these require a good credit report. Just waiting, as MrChrister suggests, will help, but much much slower. Having said that, a seller that \"\"cannot discuss the terms over the phone\"\" is most likely a dishonest person. Once you're there and in front of him it is harder for you to verify information, resist signing papers, and negotiating.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c266a77bcf1b5a8a1322854e2f6c5a9", "text": "I'm pessimistic about most things, so: They can't REPO the degree and the knowledge, but they can sure REPO the CAR, so pay off the car. My suggestion would be to pay off the vehicle, because no matter what the future holds (good or bad) you will need a vehicle to get around. Although, I recently found out from the comment below that student loans are a recourse debt that won't be forgiven. Not even with bankruptcy. Most collection agencies will take pennies in the dollar for debt, but not with student loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76384f87eaa0952d8425ce9d84c3dd45", "text": "\"You have figured out most of the answers for yourself and there is not much more that can be said. From a lender's viewpoint, non-immigrant students applying for car loans are not very good risks because they are going to graduate in a short time (maybe less than the loan duration which is typically three years or more) and thus may well be leaving the country before the loan is fully paid off. In your case, the issue is exacerbated by the fact that your OPT status is due to expire in about one year's time. So the issue is not whether you are a citizen, but whether the lender can be reasonably sure that you will be gainfully employed and able to make the loan payments until the loan is fully paid off. Yes, lenders care about work history and credt scores but they also care (perhaps even care more) about the prospects for steady employment and ability to make the payments until the loan is paid off. Yes, you plan on applying for a H1-B visa but that is still in the future and whether the visa status will be adjusted is still a matter with uncertain outcome. Also, these are not matters that can be explained easily in an on-line application, or in a paper application submitted by mail to a distant bank whose name you obtained from some list of \"\"lenders who have a reliable track record of extending auto loans to non-permanent residents.\"\" For this reason, I suggested in a comment that you consider applying at a credit union, especially if there is an Employees' Credit Union for those working for your employer. If you go this route, go talk to a loan officer in person rather than trying to do this on the phone. Similarly, a local bank,and especially one where you currently have an account (hopefully in good standing), is more likely to be willing to work with you. Failing all this, there is always the auto dealer's own loan offers of financing. Finally, one possibility that you might want to consider is whether a one-year lease might work for you instead of an outright purchase, and you can buy a car after your visa issue has been settled.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4874af977160f3a38caa439a8163e5d8", "text": "The only time it makes sense to take out a loan is: The drawbacks of these 2 points are: Otherwise it's better to pay for the car up front. You have not mentioned whether you need the car to earn income. A car will incur other costs such as insurance and maintenance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64cf0d2338f6ae238a4a3a8d17dd71a9", "text": "\"Any one of your three options is viable and has its advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I would go for the used option, but I am can-do kind of person. If you don't like micro-managing a car, you may prefer leasing. A new car is sort of the middle of the road option. Leasing will be most expensive and most liability. If you have an accident, the leasing arrangements are designed to extract money from you... heavily. Even a minor accident can require you to pay for expensive repairs, usually much more expensive than if you had your own car fixed. So, not only will you pay more per month, but your accident liability will be a lot higher. With your own car, you will need to sell it (or bring it back to the UK) obviously. A used car will be the cheapest option. A non-descript used car from the local area can also make you \"\"blend in\"\" and be less like to be targeted by a criminal as an outsider. As long as you stay away from dealers and buy the car from a private person of good reputation, you have an odds-on chance of getting a decent car. Make sure you check out the person and make sure they are \"\"real\"\". Some dealers, called \"\"curbstoners\"\", try to pretend to be original owners. You can always spot such frauds because the title will be new. Make sure the same owner has had the car for at least 3-4 years and that it says that on the title. Also, try to buy from somebody who is financially well off--they have less reason to try to screw you. Students, people under 30 and working class are bad people to buy from. Married professionals over age 35 are the right kind of person to buy from.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e441fd4d1b7a1079cf6971137dc23fd7	Why is there two currencies in Venezuela's money?	[ { "docid": "a9cc63c7170331548e0b4509671070cd", "text": "Venezuela is a command economy, and one that isn't doing terribly well right now, with rampant inflation in the several hundred percent range. As such, they've tried to limit or eliminate exchanges between their currency and foreign currencies. Currently, they allow a limited amount of exchange at fixed rates (according to a Bloomberg article, those vary between 6.3, 13.5, and 200) for certain purchases, and then otherwise disallow exchange between the currencies. However, there is a black market (illegal in Venezuela, but legal in the US) which allows the price to float, and is much higher - 800 or so according to that article from last year. A recent Valuewalk article lists the black market rate at closer to 900, and slightly different official rates. It's worth a read as it explains the different official rates in detail: Currently there are four exchange rates: First is the official one, called CENCOEX, and which charges 6.30 bolivars to the dollar. It is only intended for the importation of food and medicine. The next two exchange rates are SICAD I (12 bolivars per dollar) and SICAD 2 (50 bolivars per dollar); they assign dollars to enterprises that import all other types of goods. Because of the fact that US dollars are limited, coupons are auctioned only sporadically; usually weekly in the case of SICAD 1 and daily for SICAD 2. However, due to the economic crisis, no dollars have been allocated for these foreign exchange transactions and there hasn’t been an auction since August 18, 2015. As of November 2015, the Venezuelan government held only $16 billion in foreign exchange reserves, the lowest level in over ten years, and an amount that will dry up completely in four years time at the current rate of depletion. The last and newest exchange rate is the SIMADI, currently at 200 bolivars per dollar. This rate is reserved for the purchase and sale of foreign currency to individuals and businesses.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8bd9e0b185fddf1f7f858aa463ab5619", "text": "The exchange rate between two currencies is simply the price that the most recent market participants were able to agree on, when trading. ie: if the USDCAD is 1.36, it's because the last trade that happened where someone bought 1 USD cost 1.36 CAD. There is no one person/organization which 'decides' the rate between two currencies. The rate moves you see is just the reality of money changing hands as people in various situations trade currencies for various reasons. Just like with stocks or any other market product, foreign exchange rates can fluctuate wildly based on many things. It is very difficult to forecast where rates will go, because the biggest changes in rates can often be unpredictable news events. For example, when Brexit happened, the value of the GBP plummeted relative to other currencies, because the market traders had less faith in the UK economy, and therefore weren't willing to pay as much to buy GBP. See more here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232. There is a very high level of risk in the foreign exchange market; for your sake, don't get involved in any trading that you do not well understand, first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e30e4fb242f8e042d3c4cc995bc4986e", "text": "Canada, like other second-rate economies with weak currencies, provides USD accounts. It is not the same vice versa. It is rare to find a direct deposit foreign currency account in the US as it is the world-leading currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8fb271efafbf0a477901f22bb9c94d3", "text": "\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \"\"weak\"\" and some \"\"strong\"\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68679dfcbf90d701f3a3ee8be64ab27f", "text": "There's no way the greek government has the cash to defend a peg. Defending a peg takes a lot of cash. If your currency goes above the peg, you need to print more. If it goes below the peg, you need to buy it back, with euros for example. Greece has no euros, and so cannot defend a peg.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b276fef8038eace402603598697d7c37", "text": "\"They acquired the debt from the VZ Central Bank. Providing the Central Bank with dollars will help them control inflation. The argument against the deal is colossally stupid, and basically rests on the idea that the world community just needs to let VZ get as shitty and miserable as possible so the people will overthrow the government. Anything that eases the pain, like injecting US Dollars into the central bank, is therefore seen as \"\"propping up the government\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "621eb1ca846df96ea2ee6dd9bf8c66d0", "text": "Firstly currency prices, like any asset, depend on supply and demand. Meaning how many people want to exchange a currency to another one vs. wanting to buy that currency using another currency. Secondly, it really depends on which country and economy you are talking about. In emerging economies, currencies are very often influenced by the politics of that country. In cases like the US, there are a myriad reasons. The USD is mostly governed by psychology (flight to safety) and asset purchases/sales. In theory, currencies balance, given the inflation of a country and its trade with other countries. e.g. Germany, which was always exporting more than it was importing, had the problem of a rising currency. (Which would make its exports more expensive on foreign markets. This is the balancing act.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfc8159b5632cc4cc11c53b4744a9d71", "text": "I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7573e4ed4182d7fe0dec027f67145669", "text": "\"Wiki's not entirely accurate. My conspiracy theorist answer is because the Fed is not a government entity, it gives them increased flexibility with decreased transparency and the ability to do what is necessary to keep the currency/economy afloat under the fiat money system. A good book I found on this is Ron Paul's \"\"End the Fed\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbf4a5de9f84ac8dfd484389fa250ed0", "text": "\"Currently, there is simply no reason to do so. It's not a problem. It is no more of a problem or effort to denote \"\"5,000\"\" than it is to denote \"\"50.00\"\". But if there were a reason to do so, it wouldn't be all that difficult. Of course there would be some minor complications because some people (mostly old people presumably) would take time getting used to it, but nothing that would stop a nation from doing so. In Iceland, this has happened on several occasions in the past and while Iceland is indeed a very small economy, it shouldn't be that difficult at all for a larger one. A country would need a grace period while the old currency is still valid, new editions of already circulating cash would need to be produced, and a coordinated time would need to be set, at which point financial institutions change their balances. Of course it would take some planning and coordination, but nothing close to for example unifying two or more currencies into one, like the did with the euro. The biggest side-effect there was an inflation shot when the currencies got changed in each country, but this can be done even with giant economies like Germany and France. Cutting off two zeros would be a cakewalk in comparison. But in case of currencies like the Japanese Yen, there is simply no reason to take off 2 zeros yet. Northern-Americans may find it strange that the numbers are so high, but that's merely a matter of what you're used to. There is no added complication in paying 5.000 vs. 50 at a restaurant, it merely takes more space on a computer screen and bill, and that's not a real problem. Besides, most of the time, even in N-America, the cents are listed as well, and that doesn't seem to be enough of a problem for people to concern themselves with. It's only when you get into hyper-inflation when the shear space required for denoting prices becomes a problem, that economies have a real reason to cut off zeros.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f79a3e2072062f9b10a8706df5d09b7", "text": "\"I'd suggest that Bitcoin is not \"\"just\"\" anything. If wealthy Chinese have found it useful, good for them. If enterprising Venezuelan manage to afford basic necessities with it, that's great too. Both of those are just use cases in the end. There have been others, and there will be more. It remains to be seen just how draconian capital controls need to be to really prevent Bitcoin from being used in those environments. But if anybody can do draconian, it's probably China, so this will be a great experiment of sort, if they still have the stomach for that kind of thing. If you're arguing that the market value of bitcoin is only rising because of one use case, I invite you to [look at this historical bitcoin price chart](https://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg2920ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zvzl), spot the period of activity for your given use case, and estimate how the price action was influenced over that period by this use case. Then contrast it with the part of the graph outside of your chosen period, and make sure your idea adequately explains both parts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84e6a2db567dcdb89435943d68cd784a", "text": "In banks and institutions where you could look at the money supply of M1 which is the physical currency in circulation compared to M2 which would be all the deposits that tend to be valued much more. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/ would be the link where as of Nov. 2014 the figures are M1 - 2,849.8 M2 - 11,588.7 Footnotes from that: M1 consists of (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) traveler's checks of nonbank issuers; (3) demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float; and (4) other checkable deposits (OCDs), consisting of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) and automatic transfer service (ATS) accounts at depository institutions, credit union share draft accounts, and demand deposits at thrift institutions. Seasonally adjusted M1 is constructed by summing currency, traveler's checks, demand deposits, and OCDs, each seasonally adjusted separately. M2 consists of M1 plus (1) savings deposits (including money market deposit accounts); (2) small-denomination time deposits (time deposits in amounts of less than $100,000), less individual retirement account (IRA) and Keogh balances at depository institutions; and (3) balances in retail money market mutual funds, less IRA and Keogh balances at money market mutual funds. Seasonally adjusted M2 is constructed by summing savings deposits, small-denomination time deposits, and retail money funds, each seasonally adjusted separately, and adding this result to seasonally adjusted M1. Where M1 sounds like the physical money outside the banks and M2 is the money inside the banks. Did you mean something more specific here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product would be a link about GDP in terms of economic output that has more than a few pieces to it that I'm sure whole courses in college are devoted to understanding this measurement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "929c9780f0983ec66c646c287e974ea4", "text": "\"Congratulations! You see the problem. You can't get away from unstable currencies. The other problem is that the US will shut down anything that appears to be providing a replacement for the US Dollar. Once a token or medallion or gift certificate or whatever starts being used outside the confines of one business or one network of businesses, it will be shut down, quickly. It happened with Las Vegas gambling tokens. Another more recent attempt was with the Liberty Dollar, gold and silver coins and certificates that not only had precious metal backing, but whose proponents encouraged taking them to retailers and paying with them as if they were US Dollars. There were other problems with this idea, but it was the competitive stature of the Liberty dollar that got the headquarters raided and the main site shut down. Basically, all signs point toward dealing with currencies and their state of being systematically eroded over time. If you do find one that appears to exist, be wary, because the rules can change at any time, and the \"\"money\"\" will be nowhere near as liquid as a proper currency.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfc83f88b6585b59ac0a6f5dd80350e4", "text": "\"No money is gone. The movement of the existing currency has slowed down. Currency moves through the economy through deposits or loans to banks, and withdrawal from banks as proceeds from loans or return of deposits. When a bank makes a loan they provide a balance in a bank account, which isn't converted to hard currency until withdrawn. So those bank loans essentially count as currency, and thus effectively multiply the stock of currency available. Deposits into money market funds, and those funds loans into the commercial paper markets, have the same effect. Banks and money funds are now making fewer loans. In particular they are not funding \"\"companies\"\" that invested in securitizations of home mortgages and credit card receivables, but they are also lending less to businesses and consumers. Because they are lending less they are \"\"effectively multiplying\"\" the currency less. Think of deposited and lent currency as spare cycles on a desktop computer. You let your computer help decipher the genome when you aren't using it yourself. If you somehow feared that you would lose those cycles, slowing down your own computing, you would be less likely to lend those cycles out. There would still be the same number of computing cycles in the world, but the stock of those available for actual computing would appear to be diminished. The technical term for this concept is \"\"monetary velocity\"\" and it is a crucial factor in determing the level of overall economic activity, banking stability, and inflation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b33cbf727f004a084bf7f74b3a932a74", "text": "\"Bingo, great question. I'm not the original poster, \"\"otherwiseyep\"\", but I am in the economics field (I'm a currency analyst for a Forex broker). I also happen to strongly disagree with his posts on the origin of money. To answer your question: the villagers are forced to use the new notes by their government, which demands that their income taxes be paid with the new currency. This is glossed over by otherwiseyep, which is unfortunate because it misleads people who are new to economics into believing the system of fiat money we have now is natural/emergent (created from the bottom-up) and not enforced from the top-down. Legal tender laws enforced in each nation's courts mean that all contracts can be settled in the local fiat currency, regardless of whether the receiver of the money wants a different currency. These laws (and the income tax) create an artificial \"\"root demand\"\" for the fiat currency, which is what gives it its value. We don't just decide that green paper has value. We are forced to accumulate it by the government. Fiat currencies are not money. We call them money, but in fact they are credit derivatives. Let me explain: A currency's value is inextricably tied to the nation's bond market. When investors buy a nation's bonds, they are loaning that nation money. The investor expects to receive interest payments on the bonds. The interest rate naturally rises as the bonds are perceived to be more-risky, and naturally falls as the bonds are perceived to be less-risky. The risk comes from the fact that governments sometimes get really close to not being able to pay their interest payments. They get into so much debt, and their tax-revenue shrinks as their economy worsens. That drives up the interest rate they must pay when they issue new bonds (ie add debt). So the value of a currency comes from tax revenue (interest payments). If a government misses an interest payment, or doesn't fully pay it, the market considers this a \"\"credit event\"\" and investors sell their bonds and freak out. Selling bonds has the effect of driving interest rates even higher, so it's a vicious cycle. If the government defaults, there's massive deflation because all debt denominated in that currency suddenly skyrockets due to the higher interest rates. This creates a chain of cascading defaults - one person defaults, which leads another person, and another, and so on. Everyone was in debt to everyone else, somewhere along the chain. In order to counteract this deflation (which ultimately leads to the kind of depression you saw in 1930's US), governments will print print print, expanding the credit supply via the banks. So this is what you see happening today - banks are constantly being bailed out all over the Western world, governments are cutting programs to be able to meet their interest payments, and central banks are expanding credit supplies and bailing out their buddies. Real money has ZERO counterparty risk. What is counterparty risk? It's just the risk that the guy who owes you something won't honor his debt. Gold and silver and salt and oil aren't IOU's. So they can be real money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65ee28372de3872e9a359166613cfa9a", "text": "Money is no longer backed by gold. It's backed by the faith and credit of the issuing government. A new country,say, will first trade goods for dollars or other currency, so its ownership of gold is irrelevant. Its currency will trade at a value based on supply/demand for that currency. If it's an unstable currency, inflating too quickly, the exchange rate will reflect that as well. More than that your question kind of mixes a number of issues, loosely related. First is the gold question, second, the question of currency exchange rates and they are derived, with an example of a new country. Both interesting, but distinct processes.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
aa7a83fdea2e6bca587d69fc7e338183	Can an IRA be taxed?	[ { "docid": "076d94645c2b8b4cc3f2502d7132206f", "text": "The Motley Fool article is correct that if you earn UBTI over $1000, you will need to pay the tax, even if held in an IRA. C-corps won't generate UBTI, so you're fine with those. For non-C-corps, the most common are REITs, MLPs, and BDCs. REITs These typically invest in either real estate property or mortgages. The ones that invest in mortgages are sometimes notated: mREITs, and can occasionally generate UBTI. Tip: Don't let this stop you from investing in REITs in your IRA. REITs can be a great source of income and are best held in an IRA since the income will be tax free vs. your ordinary income tax bracket if held in a taxable account. Some examples of mREITs would be NLY, CIM, AGNC. Some property REITs would be: O, SNR, OHI, EQR. https://seekingalpha.com/article/1257351-tax-bomb-mortgage-reits-triggering-ubit MLPs Master Limited Partnerships are also pass-through entities, like REITs, but have the additional complication that most issue K-1 forms at tax time. K-1s can be very complex when the MLP owns assets across state boundaries, which is why I actually PREFER to hold MLPs in my IRA (against the advice of M. Fool) since I won't have to deal with the tax complications of filing the K-1, just as long as my MLPs don't generate over $1000 of UBTI. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4057891-mlps-kminus-1s-ubti-oh BDCs Business Development Companies like REITs and MLPs are also pass-through entities in that the income they give you will be taxed at your ordinary income bracket if held in a taxable account. Examples of BDCs include: MAIN, MCC, ARCC. You'd need to consult their 10-K to determine if there is a risk of UBTI. Tip: MLPs, BDCs, and especially REITs can all be very valuable sources of income and from my experience, UBTI is rare so don't let that scare you away if you otherwise like the investment.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e134c8e2dc970331adafc60acda2ed44", "text": "\"Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice. 4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth. In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But, at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e. the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%. I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the \"\"save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%\"\" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides. The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax. It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc86f9b2f121b065474cc6b9bee880d1", "text": "Traditional IRA contributions can be made if you have compensation and the amount of the contribution is limited to the smaller of your compensation and $5500 ($6000 if age 50 or more). Note that compensation (which generally means earnings form working) is not just what appears on a W-2 form as salary or wages; it can be earnings from self-employment too, as well as commissions, alimony etc (but not earnings from property, pensions and annuities, certain types of partnership income) You must also not have attained age 70.5 in the year for which the contribution is made. Even if you don't have any compensation of your own, you can nonetheless make a Traditional IRA contribution if your spouse has compensation as long as you are filing a joint tax return with your spouse. For spouses filing a joint return, the limits are still the same $5500/$6000 for each spouse, and the sum total of Traditional IRA contributions for both spouses also must not exceed the sum total of earned income of both spouses. The age limits etc are all still applicable. Note that none of this says anything about whether the contributions are deductible. Everyone meeting the above requirements is eligible to make contributions to a Traditional IRA; whether the contributions can be deducted from current income depends on the income: those with high enough incomes cannot deduct the contribution. This is different from Roth IRAs to which people with high incomes are not permitted to make a contribution at all. Finally, the source of the cash you contribute to the IRA can be the proceeds of the stock sale if you like; you are not required to prove that the cash received from compensation is what you sent to the IRA custodian. Read Publication 590 (available on the IRS website www.irs.gov) if you need an authoritative reference.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eabf12bb389dc3b41b7b393baf783987", "text": "Yes. Here is the chart: This will tell you if the IRA is deductible. Above these numbers, and you might be able to deposit to Roth, or to an IRA but not take a deduction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "263f0df2357af278570138ee70aab0e7", "text": "One can have a self-directed IRA. This is not like a Schwab, eTrade, etc IRA. It has a special type of custodian that knows how to manage it. I became aware of such an account as a way to purchase a rental property. There were two issues. The type of property I looked at wasn't anything a bank was willing to finance. And the rules regarding self dealing added a potential layer of expense as I technically could not perform the simplest of things for the property. For you, the obstacle looks like self-dealing. Any IRA can only be funded with cash or transfer/conversion from another IRA/401(k). I don't know how you would get the intelligent property into the IRA in the first place. Once you own a patent, or anything else, you can't sell it into the IRA. It's at times like this that member littleadv would suggest this is the time to talk to a pro before you do anything hazardous to your wealth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83fa50191ffac3fc96b6cad05e7ea38d", "text": "A rollover IRA is a traditional IRA. Your rollover contributions are not taxed and rollover or counted against your annual limit, which is income dependent. A Roth IRA is one where your contributions will be taxed going into the IRA. Note that there are adjusted gross income maximums for contribution to a Roth IRA (see here), and as far as I can tell those income maximums also determine whether or not you can rollover to a Roth IRA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d0d12071d5a8b1fab1af788a39a6c31", "text": "No. Borrowing is not allowed, but if you take a withdrawal, you have 60 days to deposit into another IRA account. This effectively creates a 60 day loan. Not what you're really looking for. If you take this withdrawal and re-deposit to new account within 60 days, no problem. If not, you owe tax on the untaxed amount as well as a 10% penalty. This comes from IRS' Publication 590, I have the document memorized by substance, not page number.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "979881b8e14f0b7ad3e0320c744d9129", "text": "\"Self directed IRAs have rules to prevent self-dealing of this sort called \"\"prohibited transactions\"\". You can't buy or sell or lease assets or obtain services from anyone closely linked to you or any beneficiaries of the IRA. You can't loan yourself money from the IRA, and you can't deliberately take the proceeds that should be going to your self directed IRA and give them to another account that you own.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b15f8fa0b7e8fb87c3c2aae0daa4d39", "text": "If you don't pull the money out of an IRA or 401(k) until you hit retirement age, there are no tax consequences at all. No matter how you invest or ignore it, it won't affect your return. Same for a Roth IRA, unless you move money out of the account before age 59 ½ it's essentially invisible to the IRS. (Because some of a Roth has already had taxes paid, the rules are more complicated if you do pull out the money, whereas the others are just a straight tax penalty with few exceptions.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "347d5c851c80fcd03aeb5473b2a53959", "text": "\"IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, \"\"the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)\"\" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirement accounts over at I Will Teach You To Be Rich. An IRA is just a container for your money and you may invest the money however you like (cash, stocks, funds, etc). A typical investment is the purchase of stocks, bonds, and/or funds containing either or both. Stocks may pay dividends and bonds pay yields. Transactions of these things trigger capital gains (or losses). This happens if you sell or if the fund manager sells pieces of the fund to buy something in its place (i.e. transactions happen without your decision and high turnover can result in huge capital gains). In a taxable account you will pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. In an IRA you don't ever pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Over the life of the IRA (30+ years) this can be a huge ton of savings. A traditional IRA is funded with pre-tax money and you only pay tax on the withdrawal. Therefore you get more money upfront to invest and more money compounds into greater amounts faster. A Roth IRA you fund with after-tax dollars, but your withdrawals are tax free. Traditional versus Roth comparison calculator. Here are a bunch more IRA and 401k calculators. Take a look at the IRA tax savings for various amounts compared to the same money in a taxable account. Compounding over time will make you rich and there's your reason for starting young. Increases in the value of gold and silver will never touch compounded gains. So tax savings are a huge reason to stash your money in an IRA. You trade liquidity (having to wait until age 59.5) for a heck of a lot more money. Though isn't it nice to be assured that you will have money when you retire? If you aren't going to earn it then, you'll have to earn it now. If you are going to earn it now, you may as well put it in a place that earns you even more. A traditional IRA has penalties for withdrawing before retirement age. With a Roth you can withdraw the principal at anytime without penalty as long as the account has been open 5 years. A traditional IRA requires you take out a certain amount once you reach retirement. A Roth doesn't, which means you can leave money in the account to grow even more. A Roth can be passed on to a spouse after death, and after the spouse's death onto another beneficiary. more on IRA Required Minimum Distributions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c40d3c9349b7d236127280fc7b9dc354", "text": "Think about contributing to both a Traditional IRA and a Roth IRA if you have the funds. In theory, you could receive the lowest tax rates by depositing money into a regular IRA during years of democratic rule, depositing money into a Roth during years of Republic rule, and then withdrawing from the Roth during democratic rule and the tradition during Republican rule. Then you would be depositing with lower tax rates and withdrawing with lower tax rates. Granted this method would involve some speculation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8eabb4ee0cac8a619ce1562d3648991d", "text": "\"Your 401K (and IRA) is a legally distinct entity from yourself. In fact, it is a \"\"trust,\"\" and your Administrator is a \"\"trustee,\"\" while you are both creator and benefactor. This fact, and the 10% early withdrawal penalty, makes it immune from most judgments. The IRS can \"\"levy\"\" your 401K or IRA for back taxes, but must waive the 10% penalty (under the 1997 Tax Reform law). That gives them the power to do what most others can't. A \"\"tricky\"\" banker may persuade you to take money out of your 401K to pay the bank. If you do, s/he has won. But s/he can't go after your 401k.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fa88dd5a13406065a89aa37e4b200a5", "text": "\"Click on the ? icon next to \"\"Employer Plan\"\". This is used to determine if you can deduct your annual contributions from your taxes. For more information on how an employer plan can affect your IRA tax deduction, see the definition for non-deductible contributions. So, we look there: The total of your Traditional IRA contributions that were deposited without a tax deduction. Traditional IRA contributions are normally tax deductible. However, if you have an employer-sponsored retirement plan, such as a 401(k), your tax deduction may be limited. The $20K difference between $272K and $252K just happens to be $15% of $132,500 which is the amount of your non-deductible contributions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19f9a0f8c9f6abd42a257e6869e6b3b8", "text": "\"This may be more of a comment than an answer, but it's too long for a comment. Perhaps the Stackexchange Gods will forgive my impudence. That said: Even with the tax penalties, it can be to your advantage to put money into a \"\"retirement\"\" account and withdraw it before retirement. The trick is: Is the amount of the tax penalty more than the benefit of untaxed compound growth? For example, just to make up some numbers: Suppose you have $1000 of gross income to invest. You are considering whether to invest in an ordinary, non-tax favored account, or a classic IRA. Either way you will get 10% returns. Your tax rate, both when you put the money in and when you take it out, is 15%. There is a 10% tax penalty for early withdrawal. With an ordinary account you will pay 15% tax off the top, so you are only investing $850. Then each year 15% of your returns are paid in taxes, so your net return is 8.5%. But when you withdraw the money there are no additional taxes. With an IRA you do not pay any taxes up front, so you can invest the entire $1000. You collect 10% each year with no taxes. When you withdraw, you pay 15% plus the 10% penalty equals 25%. So after 5 years, the ordinary account would yield $850 x 1.085^5 = $1504. The IRA would yield $1000 x 1.1^5 x 0.75 = $1208. The tax penalty hurts. You are better to use the ordinary account. But if you could leave your money in for 25 years, then the ordinary account would yield $850 x 1.085^25 = $7687. The IRA would yield $1000 x 1.1^25 x 0.75 = $8126. The IRA, even with the tax penalty, is better. Of course my numbers are just made up. What your tax bracket is, what returns you get, and how long you think you might leave the money in the investment, all vary.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c795c7c2cfbf1ff387c2264e0efaba4", "text": "First of all, there are some differences between the retirement accounts that you mentioned regarding taxes. Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts allow you to make pre-tax contributions, giving you an immediate tax deduction when you contribute. Roth IRA, Roth 401(k) are funded with after tax money, and a non-retirement account is, of course, also funded with after tax money. So if you are looking for the immediate tax deduction, this is a point in favor of the retirement accounts. Roth IRA & Roth 401(k) accounts allow the investment to grow tax-free, which means that the growth is not taxed, even when taking the investment out at retirement. With Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts, you need to pay tax on the gains realized in the account when you withdraw the money, just as you do with a non-retirement account. This is a point in favor of the Roth retirement accounts. To answer your question about capital gains, yes, it is true that you do not have a capital gain until an investment is sold. So, discounting the contribution tax deductions of the retirement accounts, if you only bought individual stocks that never paid a dividend, and never sold them until retirement, you are correct that it really wouldn't matter if you had it in a regular brokerage account or in a traditional IRA. However, even people dedicated to buy-and-hold rarely actually buy only individual stocks and hold them for 30 years. There are several different circumstances that will generally happen in the time between now and when you want to withdraw the money in retirement that would be taxable events if you are not in a retirement account: If you sell an investment and buy a different one, the gains would be taxable. If you want to rebalance your holdings, this also involves selling a portion of your investments. For example, if you want to maintain an 80% stock/20% bond ratio, and your stock values have gone up to 90%, you might want to sell some stock and buy bonds. Or if you are getting closer to retirement, you might decide to go with a higher percentage of bonds. This would trigger capital gains. Inside a mutual fund, anytime the management sells investments inside the fund and realizes capital gains, these gains are passed on to the investors, and are taxable. (This happens more often with managed funds than index funds, but still happens occasionally with index funds.) Dividends earned by the investments are taxable. Any of these events in a non-retirement account would trigger taxes that need to be paid immediately, even if you don't withdraw a cent from your account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8868baf8aeb3eb4d94c25a8034a129a9", "text": "Whether or not you can deposit to a Roth IRA, you are able to convert those deposits to A Roth account. In effect, you pay the tax going in (as with the regular brokerage account) but no tax on growth when withdrawn. The non-deductible IRA, on its own, holds little appeal, in comparison.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
26153ca19faa690d6b39135c400c8ed7	Do people tend to spend less when using cash than credit cards?	[ { "docid": "6499f32fd053b9d2f1d298fbc677af4f", "text": "\"I found the study \"\"The irrationality of payment behaviour\"\" accidentally while searching on the term \"\"DNB Study\"\" instead of \"\"D&B Study\"\". This study, which, when I followed the link, went to the web site dnb.nl (Dutch National Bank), instead of dnb.com (Dun & Bradstreet). It mentions all the salient points that I hear Dave Ramsey and others mention when they talk about studies on this subject of credit vs cash. Also, it cross references to many other studies by various researchers, banks, and universities. Is this the \"\"missing mythical DNB study?\"\" I'll let you decide. Relevant \"\"coincidental\"\" points from the study: To be fair and complete, I should mention that clearly the relevant parts of this DNB study are talking about discretionary spending. Auto-paying your mortgage with a card is clearly not going to cost you more (unless you somehow forget to pay off the card or some other silliness).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "809f3ea330e08069532bab097793e5ca", "text": "\"I'd like to know if there is any reliable research on the subject. Intuitively, this must be true, no? Is it? First, is it even possible to discover the correlation, if one exists? Dave Ramsey is a proponent of \"\"Proven study that shows you will spend 10% more on a credit card than with cash.\"\" Of course, he suggests that the study came from an otherwise reliable source, Dun & Bradstreet. A fellow blogger at Get Rich Slowly researched and found - Nobody I know has been able to track down this mythical Dun and Bradstreet study. Even Dun and Bradstreet themselves have been unable to locate it. GRS reader Nicole (with the assistance of her trusty librarian Wendi) contacted the company and received this response: “After doing some research with D&B, it turns out that someone made up the statement, and also made up the part where D&B actually said that.” In other words, the most cited study is a Myth. In fact, there are studies which do conclude that card users spend more. I think that any study (on anything, not just this topic. Cigarette companies buy studies to show they don't cause cancer, Big Oil pays to disprove global warming, etc.) needs to be viewed with a critical eye. The studies I've seen nearly all contain one of 2 major flaws - My own observation - when I reviewed our budget over the course of a year, some of the largest charges include - I list the above, as these are items whose cost is pretty well fixed. We are not in the habit of \"\"going for a drive,\"\" gas is bought when we need it. All other items I consider fixed, in that the real choice is to pay with the card or check, unlike the items some claim can be inflated. These add to about 80% of the annual card use. I don't see it possible for card use to impact these items, and therefore the \"\"10% more\"\" warning is overreaching. To conclude, I'll concede that even the pay-in-full group might not adhere to the food budget, and grab the $5 brownie near the checkout, or over tip on a restaurant meal. But those situations are not sufficient to assume that a responsible card user comes out behind over the year for having done so. A selection of the Studies I am referencing -\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1a4f629b9f84b57d881ce45744b69b0", "text": "Psychology Today had an interesting article from July 11, 2016, in which they go through the psychological aspects of using cash vs. a credit card. This article cites a 2008 paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied that found: “the more transparent the payment outflow, the greater the aversion to spending or higher the ‘pain of paying’ …leading to less transparent payment modes such as credit cards and gift cards (vs. cash) being more easily spent or treated as play or ‘monopoly money.’” The article cites a number of other studies that are of interest on this topic as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "870aab5ad61853f1b6b2527b6be59621", "text": "\"Others have commented on the various studies. If, as JoeTaxpayer says, this one particular study he mentions does not really exist, there are plenty of others. (And in that case: Did someone blatantly lie to prove a bogus point? Or did someone just get the name of the organization that did the study wrong, like it was really somebody called \"\"B&D\"\", they read it as \"\"D&B\"\" because they'd heard of Dun & Bradstreet but not of whoever B&D is. Of course if they got the organization wrong maybe they got important details of the study wrong. Whatever.) But let me add one logical point that I think is irrefutable: If you always buy with cash, there is no way that you can spend more than you have. When you run out of cash, you have no choice but to stop spending. But when you buy with a credit card, you can easily spend more than you have money in the bank to pay. Even if it is true that most credit card users are responsible, there will always be some who are not, and credit cards make it easy to get in trouble. I speak from experience. I once learned that my wife had run up $20,000 in credit card debt without my knowledge. When she divorced me, I got stuck with the credit card debt. To this day I have no idea what she spent the money on. And I've known several people over the years who have gone bankrupt with credit card debt. Even if you're responsible, it's easy to lose track with credit cards. If you use cash, when you take out your wallet to buy something you can quickly see whether there's a lot of money left or not so much. With credit, you can forget that you made the big purchase. More likely, you can fail to add up the modest purchases. It's easy to say, \"\"Oh, that's just $100, I can cover that.\"\" But then there's $100 here and $100 there and it can add up. (Or depending on your income level, maybe it's $10 here and $10 there and it's out of hand, or maybe it's $10,000.) It's easier today when you can go on-line and check the balance on your credit card. But even at that, well just this past month when I got one bill I was surprised at how big it was. I went through the items and they were all legitimate, they just ... added up. Don't cry for me, I could afford it. But I had failed to pay attention to what I was spending and I let things get a little out of hand. I'm a pretty responsible person and I don't do that often. I can easily imagine someone paying less attention and getting into serious trouble.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8dce2a7775653e8466e87083aa928a60", "text": "\"First, let me answer the question the best way I can: I don't know if there are any studies other than those that have already been mentioned. Now, let's talk about something more interesting: You don't need to base your behavior on any study, even if it is scientific. Let's pretend, for example, that we could find a scientifically valid study that shows that people spend 25% more when using a credit card than they do when spending cash. This does not mean that if you use a credit card, you will spend 25% more. All it means is that the average person spending with a credit card spends more than the average person paying cash. But there are outliers. There are plenty of people who are being frugal while using a credit card, and there are others who spend too much cash. Everyone's situation is different. The idea that you will automatically spend less by using cash would not be proven by such a study. When hearing any type of advice like this, you need to look at your own situation and see if it applies to your own life. And that is what people are doing with the anecdotal comments. Some say, \"\"Yep, I spend too much if I use a card.\"\" Others say, \"\"Actually, I find that when I have cash in my wallet, I spend it on junk.\"\" And both are correct. It doesn't matter what the study says the average person does, because you are not average. Now, let's say that you are a financial counselor who helps people work through disastrous financial messes. Your client has $20,000 in credit card debt and is having trouble paying all his bills. He doesn't have a budget and never uses cash. Probably the best advice for this guy is to stop using his card and start paying cash. It doesn't take a scientific study to see that this guy needs to change his behavior. For what it is worth, I keep a strict budget, keeping track of my spending on the computer. The vast majority of my spending is electronic. I find tracking my cash spending difficult, and sometimes I find that when I have cash in my wallet, it seems to disappear without a trace. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d14fb2c0a6b79e1e68d516dc32b2c6c", "text": "I don't think that there is any good way a study can average this and bring a useful result: The core problem is that there are people that will spend more money than they should, if they become technically able to, and the credit card is just one of the tools they abuse for that (similar to re-financing with cash-outs, zero percent loans, etc.). On the other side, there are people who control and understand their spending, and again, the mechanism of payment is irrelevant for them. Studies measure some mix between the groups, and come up with irrelevant correlations that have no causality. If you think any tool or mechanics got you in financial trouble, think again: your spending habits and lack of understanding or care get you in financial trouble - nothing else. In a world where it is considered cool to 'don't understand math', it is no surprise that so many people can't control their finances.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc736a0253f9ea442158e48f5bc98ccb", "text": "\"I thought I'd see if the credit card companies had anything to say about this while trying to get merchants to sign up. I went to visa.com, clicked \"\"Run Your Business\"\" in the top nav, then \"\"Accept Visa Payments\"\". This page has a \"\"More benefits of accepting Visa\"\" link with an overlay (which I can't easily link directly to), which includes these lines: While the average cash transaction is $17, credit card purchases average $70 while debit card purchases average $36.² ² Visa Payment Panel Study (2Q11 to 1Q12 time period); Visa MARS Data: March 2015 – May 2015 That obviously doesn't tell the entire story (I suspect people are more likely to pull out cash when they're just buying a stick of gum, and more more likely to pull out a card when they're buying large electronics), but certainly there is some evidence from the credit card companies themselves that people spend more when using cards, which is one of the aspects they use to convince merchants to accept cards. I think the best evidence that people spend more is that more and more merchants accept cards. Accepting cards comes with some significant costs (though it's important to keep in mind that accepting cash can come with some significant costs as well). I suspect that merchants wouldn't do so unless the increased sales that they get for accepting cards makes up for the fees that they need to pay and the equipment they need to buy to accept them (not to mention the risks of chargebacks and the like).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6734fb004cec0b47e1fe3632aba0ffa", "text": "Unless a study accounts for whether the users are following a budget or not, it is irrelevant to those who are trying to take their personal finances seriously. I can certainly believe that those who have no budget will spend more on a credit card than they will on a debit card or with cash. Under the right circumstances spending with cards can actually be a tool to track and reduce spending. If you can see on a monthly and yearly basis where all of your money was spent, you have the information to make decisions about the small expenses that add up as well as the obvious large expenses. Debit cards and credit cards offer the same advantage of giving you an electronic record of all of your transactions, but debit cards do not come with the same fraud protection that credit cards have, so I (and many people like me) prefer to use credit cards for security reasons alone. Cash back and other rewards points bolster the case for credit cards over debit cards. It is very possible to track all of your spending with cash, but it is also more work. The frustration of accounting for bad transcriptions and rechecking every transaction multiple times is worth discussing too (as a reason that people get discouraged and give up on budgeting). My point is simply that credit cards and the electronic records that they generate can greatly simplify the process of tracking your spending. I doubt any study out there accounts for the people who are specifically using those benefits and what effect it has on their spending.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dc3ecc0e155eadabf71442bf669fe56", "text": "\"One study found that, while people using gift certificates bought no more items than those who used cash, they tended to spend more per item. In \"\"Study 3\"\" the paper \"\"Monopoly money: The effect of payment coupling and form on spending behavior\"\", sets up a case where shoppers are given $50 in cash and $50 in gift certificates (the leftover of which can be exchanged for cash). They were asked to choose different brands and types of items to buy. They study found that There was no difference in the number of items purchased as a function of payment form for scrip However means across all product categories show that participants spent more per item when they were given [the gift certificate]\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "be787c548944df6a2e3b1ffc5a57df46", "text": "there are several reasons you might want good credit even if you could afford to pay for all your expenses in cash. having pointed out all the above reasons to have good credit, it is probably worth noting that many people with good credit choose to not borrow simply because they are more comfortable with the risks of not borrowing (e.g. inflation risk), than they are with the risks of borrowing (e.g. investment volatility).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb61a842ce680b93e02b19b67966b87f", "text": "The biggest advantage to small business owners paid in cash is not that it might save the 2 or 3 percent that would go to the credit card company. The biggest advantage is that they have the opportunity to keep the transaction entirely off the books and pocket the cash without paying income tax or sales tax, especially when no receipt is given, or when it's a service instead of a product being sold, or when it's an approximately-tracked inventory unit going out the door. Although it's illegal, it's widely done, and it's also often a temptation for employees to try and get away with doing it too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "124cae85af8990ca07a7801c5d000706", "text": "Only reason I can think of is that having a credit card, or several, is handy for buying stuff on-line, or not having to haul around a fat wallet full of cash. Of course for some of us, getting the cash back and 0% interest periods are nice, too, even if we don't really need the money. Same as for instance trying to get good mpg when you're driving, even if you could easily afford to fill up a Hummer. It's a game, really.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ed05f68ca768bf237e64f58839e2da2", "text": "You have 3 assumptions about the use of credit cards for all your purchases: 1) May be a moot point. At current interest rates that will not make much of a difference. If somebody links their card to a checking account that doesn't pay any interest there will be no additional interest earned. If the rate on their account is <1% they may make a couple of dollars a month. 2) Make sure that the card delivers on the benefits you expect. Don't select a card with an annual fee. Cash is better than miles for most people. Also make sure the best earnings aren't from only shopping at one gas station or one store. You might not make as much as you expect. Especially if the gas station is generally the most expensive in the area. Sometimes the maximum cash back is only for a limited time, or only after you have charged thousands of dollars that year. 3) It can have a positive impact on your credit rating. I have also found that the use of the credit card does minimize the chances of accidentally overdrawing the linked account. There is only one big scheduled withdraw a month, instead of dozens of unscheduled ones. There is some evidence that by disconnecting the drop in balance from the purchase, people spend more. They say I am getting X% back, but then are shocked when they see the monthly bill.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "377cac873084e349792849a9b7b8c278", "text": "Some already mentioned that you could pay with your savings and use the credit card as an emergency buffer. However, if you think there is a reasonable chance that your creditcard gets revoked and that you need cash quickly, here is a simple alternative:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7afccda4f53df1e4510720d6f68014f", "text": "\"I want to recommend an exercise: Find all the people nearby who you can talk to in less than 24 hours about credit cards: Your family, whoever lives with you, and friends. Now, ask each of them \"\"what's the worst situation you've gotten yourself into with a credit card?\"\" Personally, the ratio of people who I asked who had credit cards to the ratio of people with horror stories about how credit cards screwed up their credit was nearly 1:1. Pretty much, only one of them had managed to avoid the trap that credit cards created (that sole exception had worked for the government at a high paying job and was now retired with adult children and a lucrative pension). Because it's trivially easy over-extend yourself, as a result of how credit cards work (if you had the cash at any second, you would have no need for the credit). But do your own straw poll, and then see what the experience of people around you has been. And if there's a lot more bad than good out there, then ask yourself \"\"am I somehow more fiscally responsible than all of these people?\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c64396bb5c2c08864a7a9b1276fab0b", "text": "\"If psychologically there is no difference to you between cash and debit (you should test this over a couple of months on yourself and spouse to make sure), then I suggest two debit cards (one for you and spouse) on your main or separate checking account. If you use Mint you can set budgets for each category (envelope) and when a purchase is made Mint will automatically categorize that transaction and deduct that amount from the correct budget. For example: If you have a \"\"Fast Food\"\" budget set at $100 per month and you use the debit at McDonalds, Mint should automatically categorize it as \"\"Fast Food\"\" and deduct the amount from the \"\"Fast Food\"\" budget that you set. If it can't determine a category or gets it wrong, you can just select the proper category. Mint has an iPhone (also Android and Windows phone) app that I find very easy to use. Many people state that they don't have this psychologically difference between spending cash and debit/credit, but I would say that most actually do, especially with small purchases. It doesn't have anything to do with intellect or knowing that you are actually spending money. It has more to do with tangibility, and the physical act of handing over cash. You may not add that soda and candy bar to your purchase if you have visible cash in your wallet that will disappear more quickly. I lived in Germany for 2 years before debit cards were around or common. I'm a sharp guy and even though I knew that I paid $100 for the 152 DM, it still kind of felt like spending Monopoly money, especially considering that in the US we are used to coins normally being 25 cents or less and in Germany coins are up to 10 DM (almost $10) and are used more frequently than paper.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5decb6a6d267bdd7e47d67861b736515", "text": "The only card I've seen offer this on credit card purchases is Discover. I think they have a special deal with the stores so that the cash-over amount is not included in the percentage-fee the merchant pays. (The cash part shows up broken-out from the purchase amount on the statement--if this was purely something the store did on its own without some collaboration with Discover that would not happen). The first few times I've seen the offer, I assumed it would be treated like a cash-advance (high APR, immediate interest with no grace period, etc.), but it is not. It is treated like a purchase. You have no interest charge if you pay in full during the grace period, and no transaction fee. Now I very rarely go to the ATM. What is in it for Discover? They have a higher balance to charge you interest on if you ever fail to pay in full before the grace period. And Discover doesn't have any debit/pin option that I know of, so no concern of cannibalizing their other business. And happier customers. What is in it for the grocer? Happier customers, and they need to have the armored car come around less often and spend less time counting drawers internally.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcbf762f2bd16440bc83a5320a6dfc65", "text": "Lots of places in the US do it. Although the way that they usually phrase it is 'prices reflect a x.x% discount for cash' since most of the credit card companies have an agreement that says you cannot charge a surcharge if someone is using a credit card. So they get around it by giving a discount for cash. effect is the same, but it skirts the letter of the agreement", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c2fadd0a3d14a203908b8eeb433eb2c", "text": "My view is from the Netherlands, a EU country. Con: Credit cards are more risky. If someone finds your card, they can use it for online purchases without knowing any PIN, just by entering the card number, expiration date, and security code on the back. Worse, sometimes that information is stored in databases, and those get stolen by hackers! Also, you can have agreed to do periodic payments on some website and forgot about them, stopped using the service, and be surprised about the charge later. Debit cards usually need some kind of device that requires your PIN to do online payments (the ones I have in the Netherlands do, anyway), and automated periodic payments are authorized at your bank where you can get an overview of the currently active ones. Con: Banks get a percentage of each credit card payment. Unlike debit cards where companies usually pay a tiny fixed fee for each transaction (of, say, half a cent), credit card payments usually cost them a percentage and it comes to much more, a significant part of the profit margin. I feel this is just wrong. Con: automatic monthly payment can come at an unexpected moment With debit cards, the amount is withdrawn immediately and if the money isn't there, you get an error message allowing you to pay some other way (credit card after all, other bank account, cash, etc). When a recent monthly payment from my credit card was due to be charged from my bank account recently, someone else had been paid from it earlier that day and the money wasn't there. So I had to pay interest, on something I bought weeks ago... Pro: Credit cards apparently have some kind of insurance. I've never used this and don't know how it works, but apparently you can get your money back easily after fraudulent charges. Pro: Credit cards can be more easily used internationally for online purchases I don't know how it is with Visa or MC-issued debit cards, but many US sites accept only cards that have number/expiration date/security code and thus my normal bank account debit card isn't useable. Conclusion: definitely have one, but only use it when absolutely necessary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbff14d0604cfd236b9c40dcd9f54084", "text": "\"A credit card is basically a \"\"revolving\"\" loan, in which you're allowed to borrow up to a certain amount (the limit), and any time you borrow, you pay interest. If you were to borrow $100 to pay for something via a credit card, you'd have a $100 balance on the card. If you then pay $70 cash to the card, there would be $30 remaining. That $30 balance could accrue interest. The timing of that interest charge could vary. The 20% you've quoted is almost certainly \"\"APR,\"\" of which the \"\"A\"\" stands for \"\"annual,\"\" so that 20% would be an annual rate. It makes the most sense, mind you, to keep a minimal balance on a credit card, as the interest rate is higher than most other loans.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f2840a9a87b9e94321c55c5533ece66", "text": "Your question is based on a false premise. Debit cards are more popular in the US than credit cards are. Indeed it seems to be the non-US part of the world that is big in credit cards. See here for example", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24fcd3eab5757b282f1b5f2589ff03ef", "text": "\"I have some money invested on Merrill Edge. 2 days ago I purchased some mutual funds with most of the rest of my money in my account. I logged in today to see how it did, and noticed that there are 3 sections: Priced Investments, Cash & Money Accounts, and Pending Activity. In the Cash & Money section, there shows a negative balance of Cash (let's say -$1,000) and a positive \"\"Money Account Value\"\" (let's say +$1,100). The \"\"Money Account\"\" appears to be made up of $1 shares of something called \"\"ML Direct Deposit Program\"\". However, even though the mutual fund purchase was made 2 days ago, and the shares of the mutual funds are officially in my account, I'm still showing all of my \"\"Money Account\"\" shares ($1000). The balance sheet effectively makes it look like I somehow needed to have \"\"sold\"\" back my money account shares, converted them to cash, and then bought the funds. I'm hoping that isn't the case, and for some reason, there is a multiday lag between me buying stock and money getting deducted from my \"\"Money Account\"\". Hope that all makes sense. TLDR: what's the diff between a Cash account and Money Account that's filled with shares of \"\" ML Direct Deposit Program\"\"? Edit: Today the cash and money account offset by equal values equal to one of my mutual fund purchases.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "286feafe4312307d2c0fb34a4a46c7df", "text": "\"Why bother with the ETF? Just trade the options -- at least you have the ability to know what you actually are doing. The \"\"exotic\"\" ETFs the let you \"\"double long\"\" or short indexes aren't options contracts -- they are just collections of unregulated swaps with no transparency. Most of the short/double long ETFs also only attempt to track the security over the course of one day -- you are supposed to trade them daily. Also, you have no guarantee that the ETFs will perform as desired -- even during the course of a single day. IMO, the simplicity of the ETF approach is deceiving.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1ecac88fd4c0f66b697beaa105e5cb34	Can after-hours trading affect options pricing?	[ { "docid": "0687250a0ce30595886888539984c142", "text": "Typically the settlement price for a financial instrument (such as AAPL stock) underlying a derivative contract is determined from the average price of trading in that instrument during some short time window specified by the exchange offering the derivative. (Read the fine print on your contract to learn the exact date and time of that settlement period.) Because it's in an exchange's best interest to appear as fair as possible, the exchange will in general pick a high-volume period of time -- such as the close of trading on the expiry date -- in which to determine the settlement price. Now, the expiry date/time may be different from the last time at which the option can be traded, which may be different from the underlying settlement time. For example, most US equity options currently expire on the Saturday following the third Friday of the month, whereas they can last be traded at end-of-day on the third Friday of the month, and the settlement period may be at a slightly different time on the third Friday of the month. (Again, read the contract to know for sure.) Moreover, your broker may demand to know whether you plan to exercise the option at an even earlier date/time. So, to answer your question: After-hours trading can only affect the settlement price of an underlying instrument if the exchange in question decides that the settlement period should happen during after-hours trading. But since no exchange that wants to stay in business would possibly do that, the answer is no. Contract expiry time, contract exercise time, final contract trading time, and underlying settlement time may all fall at different dates/times. The important one for your question is settlement time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e9f6a7b5d010f000c388229f6abdd0a", "text": "\"There is a white paper on \"\"The weekend effect of equity options\"\" it is a good paper and shows that (for the most part) option values do lose money from Friday to Monday. Which makes sense because it is getting closer to expiration. Of course this not something that can be counted on 100%. If there is some bad news and the stock opens down on a Monday the puts would have increased and the calls decreased in value. Article Summary (from the authors): \"\"We find that returns on options on individual equities display markedly lower returns over weekends (Friday close to Monday close) relative to any other day of the week. These patterns are observed both in unhedged and delta-hedged positions, indicating that the effect is not the result of a weekend effect in the underlying securities. We find even stronger weekend effects in implied volatilities, but only after an adjustment to quote implied volatilities in terms of trading days rather than calendar days.\"\" \"\"Our results hold for puts and calls over a wide range of maturities and strike prices, for both equally weighted portfolios and for portfolios weighted by the market value of open interest, and also for samples that include only the most liquid options in the market. We find no evidence of a weekly seasonal in bid-ask spreads, trading volume, or open interest that could drive the effect. We also find little evidence that weekend returns are driven by higher levels of risk over the weekend. \"\"The effect is particularly strong over expiration weekends, and it is also present to a lesser degree over mid-week holidays. Finally, the effect is stronger when the TED spread and market volatility are high, which we interpret as providing support for a limits to arbitrage explanation for the persistence of the effect.\"\" - Christopher S. Jones & Joshua Shemes You can read more about this at this link for Memphis.edu\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e42588337b533431d5839a751b472ca7", "text": "You typically need to specify that you want the GTC order to be working during the Extended hours session. I trade on TD Ameritrade's Thinkorswim platform, and you can select DAY, GTC, EXT or GTC_EXT. So in your case, you would select GTC_EXT.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7c4a0d571de62eb3406e5bca11eef0d", "text": "You can definitely affect the price - putting in a buy increases the demand for the stock, causing a permanent price move. Also if you hammer the market trying to execute too quickly you can hit offers that are out of the money and move the price temporarily before it stabilizes to its new equilibrium. True, as an individual investor your trades will be negligible in size and the effect will be nonexistent. But if you are a hedge fund putting in a buy for 5% of dtv, you can have a price impact. not 50%, but at least a handful of bps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "683ed52a2c1f779f32da70bf19112b14", "text": "Yes, and there's a good reason they might. (I'm gonna use equity options for the example; FX options are my thing, but they typically trade European style). The catch is dividends. Imagine you're long a deep-ITM call on a stock that's about to pay a dividend. If that dividend is larger than the time value remaining on the option, you'd prefer to exercise early - giving you the stock and the dividend payment - rather than hanging on to the time value of the option. You can get a similar situation in FX options when you're long a deep-ITM American call on a positive-carry currency (say AUDJPY); you might find yourself so deep in the money, with so little time value left on the option, that you'd rather exercise the option and give up the remaining time value in return for the additional carry from getting the spot position early.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2745d7a797d99a0b61f8636ccaacd94", "text": "One of the fundamental of technical analysis suggests that holding a security overnight represents a huge commitment. Therefore it would follow that traders would tend to close their positions prior to market close and open them when it opens.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d0da0c6bc7b519bbf9f4a9cccfde482", "text": "\"You'd need to know the delta and the theta of the option. You can either calculate them yourself using a model like Black-Scholes (assuming you have a market price and can imply a volatility, and know the other factors that go into the model) or, you can see if your broker quotes \"\"greeks\"\" as well (mine does). The delta is the sensitivity (rate of change in value) to the underlying stock price, and the theta is the sensitivity to time passing (usually expressed in $/day). So if your option has a delta of .5 and a theta of -.04, when one day passes and the underlying stock goes up $3, the option will gain roughly $1.50 due to the underlying stock price and lose $0.04 due to time passing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c9a310e4f1b457214293130c02765e1", "text": "Depending on the day and even time, you'd get your $2 profit less the $5 commission. Jack's warning is correct, but more so for thinly traded options, either due to the options having little open interest or the stock not quite so popular. In your case you have a just-in-the-money strike for a highly traded stock near expiration. That makes for about the best liquidity one can ask for. One warning is in order - Sometime friday afternoon, there will be a negative time premium. i.e. the bid might seem lower than in the money value. At exactly $110, why would I buy the option? Only if I can buy it, exercise, and sell the stock, all for a profit, even if just pennies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b4d93b9dbd732db251e4c0d6cecbf1e", "text": "You haven't said why you think you will gain at $41, but the graph never lies. Take it one piece at a time: At $41, your stock will lose a big chunk of value. Your short calls will expire. Your puts will gain a bit of value. The stock's loss outweighs the option gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b991029e2677b48b8aee1e18bc92fbaf", "text": "The two answers so far are right, but there's a third factor - for many stocks, there's after hours trading. So the official 4PM close is not what the stock's last trade was when they open again. Regardless, even that after hour price is not the starting point as Muro points out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a46d1b49e84a23dc41d9a8c35eb44328", "text": "You could have both options exercised (and assigned to you) on the same day, but I don't think you could lose money on both on the same day. The reason is that while exercises are immediate, assignments are processed after the markets close at the end of each day. See http://www.888options.com/help/faq/assignment.jsp for details. So you would get both assignments at the same time, that night. The net effect should be that you don't own any stock (someone would put you the stock, then it'd be called away) and you don't have the options anymore. You should have incoming cash of $1500 selling the stock to the call exerciser and outgoing cash of $1300 buying from the put exerciser, right? So you would have no more options but $200 more cash in your account in the morning. You bought at 13 and sold at 15. This options position is an agreement to buy at 13 and sell at 15 at someone else's option. The way you lose money is if one of the options isn't exercised while the other is, i.e. if the stock is below 13 so nobody is going to opt to buy from you at 15, but they'll sell to you at 13; or above 15 so nobody is going to opt to sell to you at 13, but they'll buy from you at 15. You make money if neither is exercised (you keep the premium you sold for) or both are exercised (you keep the gap between the two, plus the premium). Having both exercised is surely rare, since early exercise is rare to begin with, and tends to happen when options are deep in the money; so you'd expect both to be exercised if both are deep in the money at some point. Having both be exercised on the same day ... can't be common, but it's maybe most likely just before expiration with minimal time value, if the stock moves around quickly so both options are in the money at some point during the day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fe5999d61e2c4421932f9a2e290acf0", "text": "When I place an order with Scottrade I also have to specify if I am wanting to trade outside of normal hours.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f844c78a118a6364699fe2009542eed2", "text": "\"Yes, almost always. I trade some of the most illiquid single stock options, and I would be absolutely murdered if I didn't try to work orders between the bid/ask. When I say illiquid, I mean almost non-existent: ~50 monthly contracts on ALL contracts for a given underlying. Spreads of 30% or more. The only time you shouldn't try to work an order, in my opinion, is when you think you need to trade immediately (rare), if implied volatility (IV) has moved to such a degree that the market makers (MM) won't hit your order while they're offering fair IV (they'll sometimes come down to meet you at their \"\"real\"\" price to get the exchange's liquidity rebate), or if the bid/ask spread is a penny. For illiquid single stock options, you need to be extremely mindful of implied and statistical volatility. You can't just try to always put your order in the middle. The MMs will play with the middle to get you to buy at higher IVs and sell at lower. The only way you can hope that an order working below the bid / above the ask will get filled is if a big player overwhelms the MMs' (who are lined up on the bid and ask) current orders and hits yours with one large order. I've never seen this happen. The only other way is like you said: if the market moves against you, the orders in front of yours disappear, and someone hits your order, but I think that defeats the intent of your question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c2fb0d61af7089c4fee8f103976fc00", "text": "There's someone on both sides of every derivatives trade. When volatility goes up, risk goes up, and prices go up. For every dollar lost when that price changes quickly, someone is making a dollar just as quickly. If you're on the right side, you can make a fortune overnight in derivatives when volatility is high; during a normal market, it is much harder and takes much longer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "495c342f3cfec0dc4d35802cfc0b6011", "text": "An option gives you the option rather than the obligation to buy (or sell) the underlying so you don't have to exercise you can just let the option expire (so long it doesn't have an automatic expiry). After expiration the option is worthless if it is out of the money but other than that has no hangover. Option prices normally drop as the time value of the option decays. An option has two values associated with it; time value and exercise value. Far out of the money (when the price of the underlying is far from the strike price on the losing side) options only have time value whereas deep in the money options (as yours seems to be) has some time value as well as the intrinsic value of the right to buy (sell) at a low (high) price and then sell (buy) the underlying. The time value of the option comes from the possibility that the price of the underlying will move (further) in your favour and make you more money at expiry. As expiry closes it is less likely that there will be a favourable mood so this value declines which can cause prices to move sharply after a period of little to no revaluing. Up to now what I have said applies to both OTC and traded options but exchange traded options have another level of complexity in their trading; because there are fewer traders in the options market the size of trade at which you can move the market is much lower. On the equities markets you may need to trade millions of shares to have be substantial enough to significantly move a price, on the options markets it could be thousands or even hundreds. If these are European style options (which sounds likely) and a single trading entity was holding a large number of the exchange traded options and now thinks that the price will move significantly against them before expiry their sell trade will move the market lower in spite of the options being in the money. Their trade is based on their supposition that by the time they can exercise the option the price will be below the strike and they will lose money. They have cashed out at a price that suited them and limited what they will lose if they are right about the underlying. If I am not correct in my excise style assumption (European) I may need more details on the trade as it seems like you should just exercise now and take the profit if it is that far into the money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1d0ccdbcd79490bd9195e82a5c6bd52", "text": "No, something doesn't seem right here. There would be virtually no time value to the option 10 minutes before market close on the expiration day. What option is it, and what is the expiration? EDIT: It appears you were looking only at the ASK price. It was $2.05. However, the BID price was only $1.35 and the last transaction was $1.40. So the true value is right about $1.35 to $1.40 at this second. This is a pitfall that tends to occur when you trade options with almost no volume. For instance, the open interest in that option is only 1 contract (assuming that is yours). So the Bid and the Ask can often be very far apart as they are only being generated by computer traders or the result of outdated, irrelevant human orders.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2355711bff861b12e2713816121c028b", "text": "\"I can't speak authoritatively to your broader question about stocks in general, but in several years tracking AAPL closely, I can tell you that there's little apparent pattern to when their earnings call will be, or when it will be announced. What little I do know: - AAPL's calls tend to occur on a Tuesday more than any other day of the week - it's announced roughly a month in advance, but has been announced w/ less notice - it has a definite range of dates in which it occurs, typically somewhere in the 3rd week of the new quarter plus or minus a few days More broadly for #1: Given the underlying nature of what an option is, then yes, the day an earnings call date is announced could certainly influence the IV/price of options - but only for options that expire inside the \"\"grey area\"\" (~2 weeks long) window in which the call could potentially occur. Options expiring outside that grey area should experience little to no price change in reaction to the announcement of the date - unless the date was itself surprising, e.g. an earlier date would increase the premium on earlier dated options, a later date would increase the premium for later-dated options. As for #2: The exact date will probably always be a mystery, but the main factors are: - the historical pattern of earnings call dates (and announcements of those dates) which you can look up for any given company - when the company's quarter ends - potentially some influence in how long it takes the company to close out their books for the quarter (some types of businesses would be faster than others) - any special considerations for this particular quarter that affect reporting ability And finally: - a surprise of an earnings call occurring (substantively) later than usual is rarely going to be a good sign for the underlying security, and the expectation of catastrophe - while cratering the underlying - may also cause a disproportionate rise in IVs/prices due to fear\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
922a81d28f80dfc3b801fc389b17a2f6	Purchasing a home using collateral	[ { "docid": "1e7adfc1b420f3cf2fa710bb402c3878", "text": "Since you only own half of the house, you would most likely need the cooperation of whoever owns the other half in order to use it as collateral for a loan, but if you can do that, there's no reason you couldn't do what you're talking about. The complication is that if you default on the loan, the bank isn't going to seize half of the house. They'll repossess the entire house, sell it, and take what they're owed out of the proceeds, leaving you and whoever owns the other 50% to fight over the remnants. Even if the owner of the other half is family, they may be hesitant to risk losing the house if you don't pay your mortgage, so this could be a dicey conversation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a1d91bc6d5291d5aba1cd395504dfff", "text": "What do you see as the advantage of doing this? When you buy a house with a mortgage, the bank gets a lien on the house you are buying, i.e. the house you are buying is the collateral. Why would you need additional or different collateral? As to using the house for your down payment, that would require giving the house to the seller, or selling the house and giving the money to the seller. If the house was 100% yours and you don't have any use for it once you buy the second house, that would be a sensible plan. Indeed that's what most people do when they buy a new house: sell the old one and use the money as down payment on the new one. But in this case, what would happen to the co-owner? Are they going to move to the new house with you? The only viable scenario I see here is that you could get a home equity loan on the first house, and then use that money as the down payment on the second house, and thus perhaps avoid having to pay for mortgage insurance. As DanielAnderson says, the bank would probably require the signature of the co-owner in such a case. If you defaulted on the loan, the bank could then seize the house, sell it, and give the co-owner some share of the money. I sincerely doubt the bank would be interested in an arrangement where if you default, they get half interest in the house but are not allowed to sell it without the co-owner's consent. What would a bank do with half a house? Maybe, possibly they could rent it out, but most banks are not in the rental business. So if you defaulted, the co-owner would get kicked out of the house. I don't know who this co-owner is. Sounds like you'd be putting them in a very awkward position.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8df99bf147aafbe889b937e3843b282e", "text": "Short answer: yes, you can put up collateral for someone else's loan. The bank will be happy to take your money, give it to the other person, and return it to you on completion of the loan (keeping the interest the security makes on the money market and the interest they're charging the other person for themselves). If the above doesn't sound very appealing (you don't see any benefit from your investment, and can be left holding the bag if your friend defaults on their loan), it really isn't a great way to spend your money. However, as assistance to someone else, it provides several advantages over directly transferring the money:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1ccea21c553d6fdbf534fdb0d965a54", "text": "The home owner will knock 20% off the price of the house. If the house is worth $297K, then 20% is just a discount your landlord is offering. So your actual purchase price is $237K, and therefore a bank would have to lend you $237K. Since the house is worth more than the loan, you have equity. 20% to be more accurate. Another way to say is, the bank only wants to loan you 80% of the value of the item securing the loan. If you default on day one, they can sell the house to somebody else for $296K and get a 20% return on their loan. So this 20% you are worried about isn't actually money that anybody gives anybody else, it is just a concept.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15403ed7ab7fbb0b95f83fa531977291", "text": "I've done this, but on the other side. I purchased a commercial property from someone I had a previous relationship with. A traditional bank wouldn't loan me the money, but the owner was willing to finance it. All of the payments went through a professional escrow company. In our case it was a company called Westar, but I'm sure there are plenty out here. They basically serve as the middle-man, for a fee (something like $5 a payment, plus something to set it up). They have the terms of the loan, and keep track of balances, can handle extra principle payments and what that does to the term of the loan, etc. You want to have a typical mortgage note that is recorded with the local clerk's office. If you look around, you should be able to find a real estate lawyer who can set all this up for you. It will cost you a bit up front, but it is worth it to do this right. As far as taxes, my understanding is that the property itself is taxed the same as any other property transfer. You would owe taxes on the difference between the value of the property when you inherited it and when you sold it. The interest you get from the loan would be taxed as regular income. The escrow company should send you tax forms every year listing the amount of interest that you received. There are also deductions you can take for expenses in the process.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b9d593b1a04755bdf0903d4018edc79", "text": "Presumably this house is a great deal for you for some reason if you are willing to go to great lengths such as these to acquire it. I suggest you have your father purchase the house with cash, then you purchase the house from him. You might want to discuss this with the title company, it's possible that there are some fees that they will waive if you close both sales through them in a short period of time. If the home will appraise for a higher amount than purchase, then you may be able to get a mortgage without a significant down-payment. If not, then you will need to owe your father at least the amount of the down-payment at closing time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d4ba7208ee4504c419e95dd85ca7fd8", "text": "\"There are two ways that mortgages are sold: The loan is collateralized and sold to investors. This allows the bank to free up money for more loans. Of course sometime the loan may be treated like in the game of hot potato nobody want s to be holding a shaky loan when it goes into default. The second way that a loan is sold is through the servicing of the loan. This is the company or bank that collects your monthly payments, and handles the disbursement of escrow funds. Some banks lenders never sell servicing, others never do the servicing themselves. Once the servicing is sold the first time there is no telling how many times it will be sold. The servicing of the loan is separate from the collateralization of the loan. When you applied for the loan you should have been given a Servicing Disclosure Statement Servicing Disclosure Statement. RESPA requires the lender or mortgage broker to tell you in writing, when you apply for a loan or within the next three business days, whether it expects that someone else will be servicing your loan (collecting your payments). The language is set by the US government: [We may assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your loan while the loan is outstanding.] [or] [We do not service mortgage loans of the type for which you applied. We intend to assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your mortgage loan before the first payment is due.] [or] [The loan for which you have applied will be serviced at this financial institution and we do not intend to sell, transfer, or assign the servicing of the loan.] [INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARER: Insert the date and select the appropriate language under \"\"Servicing Transfer Information.\"\" The model format may be annotated with further information that clarifies or enhances the model language.]\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ea4d3a923c2639ab701f7799273b1a1", "text": "\"@Alex B already answered the first question. I want to respond to the second and third: I have heard the term \"\"The equity on your home is like a bank\"\". What does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home as collateral? Yes, you can borrow against the equity in your home. What you should keep in mind is that you can only borrow against the amount that you've paid on your house. For example, if you've paid $100,000 against your house, you can then borrow $100,000 (assuming the value hasn't changed). The argument that this is a good deal misses the obvious alternative: If you didn't spend that $100,000 on a house, then you'd still have it and wouldn't need to take out a loan at all. Of course, equity still has value, and you should consider it when doing the cost/benefit analysis, but make sure to compare your equity to savings you could have from renting. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying $800 in rent, to owning a house? Economically: As you'll notice from my parenthetical remarks, this is extremely situational. It might be good to come up with a spreadsheet for your situation, taking all of the costs into account, and see if you end up better or worse. Also, there's nothing wrong with buying a house for non-economic reasons if that's what you want. Just make sure you're aware of the real cost before you do it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fe3a21d9ecd6b9cf75004a9fe20dd7d", "text": "To give the seller cash at the closing, you will need to borrow the money ahead of time, which means a mortgage is out. A bank will only make a mortgage if they get the deed. Therefore, you will have to borrow a different way, such as through a more-expensive home equity loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc9b968ba68ce8b572b9b07fb3ace71a", "text": "You need to talk to a local attorney specializing in real estate matters. The contract needs to ensure that your interests are protected. How you do that is too complex for an answer here and varies from state to state, or even jurisdictions within a state. There are all sorts of options. Sometimes deals like this are structured so that you can actually sell your remaining equity in the property to a third party later on. If the property has value, but the banks aren't interested in lending right now, you could potentially make money on it down the road.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c3ee85ebbb20ccd9966af2e638bf2b1", "text": "\"As a legal contract, a mortgage is a form of secured debt. In the case of a mortgage, the debt is secured using the property asset as collateral. So \"\"no\"\", there is no such thing as a mortgage contract without a property to act as collateral. Is it a good idea? In the current low interest rate environment, people with good income and credit can obtain a creditline from their bank at a rate comparable to current mortgage rates. However, if you wish to setup a credit line for an amount comparable to a mortgage, then you will need to secure it with some form of collateral.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2254b39e5790220d2c9a52fce32b4daa", "text": "@OP: It's all about risk. With a cash buyer the decision is left up to one person. With a financed buyer it adds another approval process (the lender). It's another opportunity for the deal to fall through. If the bank is the lender then there's even more risk. They've already taken back the property once and incurred cost and they're setting themselves up to do it all over again. The discount price can depend on a lot of factors. Maybe it's a bad area and they need to get rid of it. Maybe the appraisals for the area are low because of foreclosures and they know it will be hard for a Buyer to get a loan. Lots of reasons as to what price they'd take. @Shawn: Every deal has contingencies unless it's a foreclosure bought at auction. Even if you are getting a steal from the bank in terms of price you're always going to have an inspection period. If a Buyer doesn't need an inspection then he will just go to an auction and buy a property for an even cheaper price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba2428b923a0e7dab801eb370c32c17b", "text": "\"It's legal. That's what a home equity loan is, for example. More generally, what you're talking about is a \"\"second mortgage\"\". It has no effect on the primary mortgage that you've already made to your bank; they're still secured, and if you get foreclosed, they get paid, and only if there's something left over does the second mortgage holder get anything. That's why second mortgages are more risky than first mortgages, and why you might have trouble finding someone willing to do it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa249c4470ffeaff144f449eab787ff1", "text": "As per my comments, I think this is up to you and how much work you want to put forth. I do not feel it is trivial to provide documentation even with 90% of it will be the same among lenders. See this question: First answer, third and fourth paragraphs. You need to go as far as understanding the total cost of the loan, you probably need a good faith estimate. I would also compare a minimum of three lenders.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fb5db8326c2efdceaf19289ec6d1721", "text": "If a bank is evaluating a persons qualifications to qualify for a loan they have to follow the FDIC and HUD guidelines for equal opportunity credit. If they offer mortgages they will use the phrase equal housing. from the lending club website (fine print area): 2 This depiction is a summary of the processes for obtaining a loan or making an investment. Loans are issued by WebBank, an FDIC insured Utah-chartered industrial bank located in Salt Lake City, Utah, Equal Housing Lender. Investors do not invest directly in loans. Investors purchase Member Dependent Notes from Lending Club. Loans are not issued to borrowers in IA and ID. Individual borrowers must be a US citizen or permanent resident and at least 18 years old. Valid bank account and social security number/FEIN are required. All loans are subject to credit review and approval. Your actual rate depends upon credit score, loan amount, loan term, credit usage and history. LendingClub notes are issued pursuant to a Prospectus on file with the SEC. You should review the risks and uncertainties described in the Prospectus related to your possible investment in the notes. Currently only residents of the following states may invest in Lending Club notes: AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, NH, NV, NY, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, or WY. Our mailing address is: Lending Club, 71 Stevenson, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc461aad575d67fc10ebaacbaaa83cd6", "text": "In a prior blog post titled “Learn Why You Would Wholesale Property Using Double Escrows“, we introduced using transactional funding when you plan on wholesaling property using a double escrow. There are a variety of different sources that offer transactional funding for wholesalers. You can find them by simply typing into a search engine such as Google, Bing, or Yahoo the keywords “transactional funding companies”. You will find hundreds of companies offering this service. You will find that some are more relaible than others. You will find that some are going to charge an upfront processing fee, some will charge a flat rate, some will charge a points. It is a matter of doing some research and ask for referrals from other real estate investors at real estate investment clubs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bee4d2ec69a0fd1cb331ff5ed33ed0ef", "text": "\"Any sensible lender will require a lean lien against your formerly-free-and-clear property, and will likely require an appraisal of the property. The lender is free to reject the deal if the house is in any way not fitting their underwriting requirements; examples of such situations would be if the house is in a flood/emergency zone, in a declining area, an unusual property (and therefore hard to compare to other properties), not in salable condition (so even if they foreclose on it they'd have a questionable ability to get their money back), and so forth. Some lenders won't accept mobile homes (manufactured housing) as collateral, for instance, and also if the lender agrees they may also require insurance on the property to be maintained so they can ensure that a terrible fate doesn't befall both properties at one time (as happens occasionally). On the downside, in my experience (in the US) lenders will often require a lower loan percentage than a comparable cash down deal. An example I encountered was that the lender would happily provide 90% loan-to-value if a cash down payment was provided, but would not go above 75% LTV if real estate was provided instead. These sort of deals are especially common in cases of new construction, where people often own the land outright and want to use it as collateral for the building of a home on that same land, but it's not uncommon in any case (just less common than cash down deals). Depending on where you live and where you want to buy vs where the property you already own is located, I'd suggest just directly talking to where you want to first consider getting a quote for financing. This is not an especially exotic transaction, so the loan officer should be able to direct you if they accept such deals and what their conditions are for such arrangements. On the upside, many lenders still treat the LTV% to calculate their rate quote the same no matter where the \"\"down payment\"\" is coming from, with the lower the LTV the lower the interest rate they'll be willing to quote. Some lenders might not, and some might require extra closing fees - you may need to shop around. You might also want to get a comparative quote on getting a direct mortgage on the old property and putting the cash as down payment on the new property, thus keeping the two properties legally separate and giving you some \"\"walk away\"\" options that aren't possible otherwise. I'd advise you to talk with your lenders directly and shop around a few places and see how the two alternatives compare. They might be similar, or one might be a hugely better deal! Underwriting requirements can change quickly and can vary even within individual regions, so it's not really possible to say once-and-for-all which is the better way to go.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e3f463c2be19d7e0274f19bc74958c4a	What do Earnings Per Share tell potential shareholders?	[ { "docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e", "text": "", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9a63c807518f8264be60f9212f0462c", "text": "Earnings per share is the company profit (or loss), divided by the number of outstanding shares. The number should always be compared to the share price, so for instance if the EPS is $1 and the share price is $10, the EPS is 10% of the share price. This means that if the company keeps up this earning you should expect to make 10% yearly on your investment, long term. The stock price may fluctuate, but if the company keeps on making money you will eventually do so too as investor. If the EPS is low it means that the market expects the earnings to rise in the future, either because the company has a low profit margin that can be vastly improved, or because the business is expected to grow. Especially the last case may be a risky investment as you will lose money if the company doesn't grow fast enough, even if it does make a healthy profit. Note that the listed EPS, like most key figures, is based on the last financial statement. Recent developments could mean that better or worse is generally expected. Also note that the earnings of some companies will fluctuate wildly, for instance companies that produce movies or video games will tend to have a huge income for a quarter or two following a new release, but may be in the negative in some periods. This is fine as long as they turn a profit long term, but you will have to look at data for a longer period in order to determine this.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0dcf27f71de383975b0639ac33ada7d5", "text": "the implications are that the company's earnings per share may seem greater, (after the company buys them there will be less shares outstanding), giving wall street the impression that there is more growth potential than there really is. its an accounting gimmick that can work for a few quarters while the company evaluates how else to impress wall street", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c6d9c87fc60a8c5f72ee0140b593d35", "text": "\"A stock, at its most basic, is worth exactly what someone else will pay to buy it right now (or in the near future), just like anything else of value. However, what someone's willing to pay for it is typically based on what the person can get from it. There are a couple of ways to value a stock. The first way is on expected earnings per share, most of would normally (but not always) be paid in dividends. This is a metric that can be calculated based on the most recently reported earnings, and can be estimated based on news about the company or the industry its in (or those of suppliers, likely buyers, etc) to predict future earnings. Let's say the stock price is exactly $100 right now, and you buy one share. In one quarter, the company is expected to pay out $2 per share in dividends. That is a 2% ROI realized in 3 months. If you took that $2 and blew it on... coffee, maybe, or you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd realize a total gain of $8 in one year, or in ROI terms an annual rate of 8%. However, if you reinvested the money, you'd be making money on that money, and would have a little more. You can calculate the exact percentage using the \"\"future value\"\" formula. Conversely, if you wanted to know what you should pay, given this level of earnings per share, to realize a given rate of return, you can use the \"\"present value\"\" formula. If you wanted a 9% return on your money, you'd pay less for the stock than its current value, all other things being equal. Vice-versa if you were happy with a lesser rate of return. The current rate of return based on stock price and current earnings is what the market as a whole is willing to tolerate. This is how bonds are valued, based on a desired rate of return by the market, and it also works for stocks, with the caveat that the dividends, and what you'll get back at the \"\"end\"\", are no longer constant as they are with a bond. Now, in your case, the company doesn't pay dividends. Ever. It simply retains all the earnings it's ever made, reinvesting them into doing new things or more things. By the above method, the rate of return from dividends alone is zero, and so the future value of your investment is whatever you paid for it. People don't like it when the best case for their money is that it just sits there. However, there's another way to think of the stock's value, which is it's more core definition; a share of the company itself. If the company is profitable, and keeps all this profit, then a share of the company equals, in part, a share of that retained earnings. This is very simplistic, but if the company's assets are worth 1 billion dollars, and it has one hundred million shares of stock, each share of stock is worth $10, because that's the value of that fraction of the company as divided up among all outstanding shares. If the company then reports earnings of $100 million, the value of the company is now 1.1 billion, and its stock should go up to $11 per share, because that's the new value of one ten-millionth of the company's value. Your ROI on this stock is $1, in whatever time period the reporting happens (typically quarterly, giving this stock a roughly 4% APY). This is a totally valid way to value stocks and to shop for them; it's very similar to how commodities, for instance gold, are bought and sold. Gold never pays you dividends. Doesn't give you voting rights either. Its value at any given time is solely what someone else will pay to have it. That's just fine with a lot of people right now; gold's currently trading at around $1,700 an ounce, and it's been the biggest moneymaker in our economy since the bottom fell out of the housing market (if you'd bought gold in 2008, you would have more than doubled your money in 4 years; I challenge you to find anything else that's done nearly as well over the same time). In reality, a combination of both of these valuation methods are used to value stocks. If a stock pays dividends, then each person gets money now, but because there's less retained earnings and thus less change in the total asset value of the company, the actual share price doesn't move (much). If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then people only get money when they cash out the actual stock, but if the company is profitable (Apple, BH, etc) then one share should grow in value as the value of that small fraction of the company continues to grow. Both of these are sources of ROI, and both are seen in a company that will both retain some earnings and pay out dividends on the rest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ccdf4de95322365d42b60b0d8817169", "text": "\"The following is only an overview and does not contain all of the in-depth reasons why you should look more deeply. When you look at a stock's financials in depth you are looking for warning signs. These may warn of many things but one important thing to look for is ratio and growth rate manipulation. Using several different accounting methods it is possible to make a final report reflect a PE ratio (or any other ratio) that is inconsistent with the realities of the company's position. Earnings manipulation (in the way that Enron in particular manipulated them) is more widespread than you might think as \"\"earnings smoothing\"\" is a common way of keeping earnings in line (or smooth) in a recession or a boom. The reason that PE ratio looks so good could well be because professional investors have avoided the stock as there appear to be \"\"interesting\"\" (but legal) accounting decisions that are of concern. Another issue that you don't consider is growth. earnings may look good in the current reporting period but may have been stagnant or falling when considered over multiple periods. The low price may indicate falling revenues, earnings and market share that you would not be aware of when taking only your criteria into account. Understanding a firm will also give you an insight into how future news might affect the company. If the company has a lot of debt and market interest rates rise or fall how will that effect their debt, if another company brings out a competing product next week how will it effect the company? How will it effect their bottom line? How much do they rely on a single product line? How likely is it that their flagship product will become obsolete? How would that effect the company? Looking deeply into a company's financial statements will allow you to see any issues in their accounting practices and give you a feel for how they are preforming over time, it will also let you look into their cost of capital and investment decisions. Looking deeply into their products, company structure and how news will effect them will give you an understanding of potential issues that could threaten your investment before they occur. When looking for value you shouldn't just look at part of the value of the company; you wouldn't just look at sales of a single T-shirt range at Wallmart when deciding whether to invest in them. It is exactly the same argument for why you should look at the whole of the company's state when choosing to invest rather than a few small metrics.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "715832a0ce5dd6bfc23d850927768807", "text": "One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67678b24e00d599afb2ad4f0fb52c905", "text": "\"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's \"\"goal\"\" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be. Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say \"\"this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest\"\". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74f5180f25f128a9c22aaf7654f0730f", "text": "Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends). A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio. It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate. When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd59a0d6be04b9e7ff8cc04436d98108", "text": "\"What does it mean in terms of share price? Should the share price increase by 15 cents? No, but you're on the right track. In theory, the price of a share reflects it's \"\"share\"\" of time discounted future earnings. To put it concretely, imagine a company consistently earning 15 cents a share every year and paying it all out as dividends. If you only paid 25 cents for it, you could earn five cents a share by just holding it for two years. If you imagine that stocks are priced assuming a holding period of 20 years or so, so we'd expect the stock to cost less than 3 dollars. More accurately, the share price reflects expected future earnings. If everyone is assuming this company is growing earnings every quarter, an announcement will only confirm information people have already been trading based on. So if this 15 cents announcement is a surprise, then we'd expect the stock price to rise as a function of both the \"\"surprise\"\" in earnings, and how long we expect them to stay at this new profitability level before competition claws their earnings away. Concretely, if 5 cents a share of that announcement were \"\"earnings surprise,\"\" you'd expect it to rise somewhere around a dollar.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb34d6f5694c9ab4813a79be7e88e943", "text": "\"Not sure I fully understand your question but my take on it is this: There a lot of people out there that admire companies and own the stock just because they like the company. For example, I know some kids who own Disney stock. They only have a share or two but they keep it because they want to say \"\"I own a part of Disney.\"\" Realistically speaking, if they hold or sell the stock it is so minuscule to have any realizable affect on the overall value of the stock which does not really make the company look better from an investor perspective. However, if a company has people that just want to own the stock just like your uncle are indeed \"\"better\"\" because they must have provided a product or service that is valued intrinsically.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48102e46d91b862d85bd720bac8e465f", "text": "Include warnings that these numbers are estimates and are not adjusted for the market impact and tax impact of selling these shares. They need to stop pondering to the followers of the Prosperity Theology and get their analysis changed. Going to the shareholders page and just adding up their shares in comparison to the current price is lazy and not a good indicator.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a025d389c97e33531f1be1392b2444c3", "text": "\"When you buy a stock, you're really paying for a STREAM of earnings, from now till whenever. The job of an investor is to figure out how large that stream will be in the future. But if the stock price were the same as \"\"earnings\"\" (for one year), it would mean that you would get all future earnings for \"\"free.\"\" That's not likely to happen unless 1) the company is in liquidation,\"\" meaning \"\"no future\"\" and 2) it earned ALL of the money it ever earned in the past year, meaning \"\"no past.\"\" If there are likely to be any earnings in the future, you will have to pay for those future earnings, over and above what was earned in the most recent year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1eebb6fe1711a3950d7b67ffa1a5a0a6", "text": "Well, if one share cost $100 and the company needs to raise $10000, then the company will issue 100 shares for that price. Right? However, say there's 100 shares out there now, then each share holder owns 1/100th of the company. Now the company will remain the same, but it's shared between 200 shareholders after the issuing of new shares. That means each share holder now owns 1/200th of the company. And hence only gets 1/200th of their earnings etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f18b39a5ed782d8589c444b89855fab", "text": "SE:Personal Finance user Ray K says in a comment on this question that his or her broker said: a company cannot release any significant news in a share-holder meeting that is not publicly accessible / open, similar to how earnings releases are available to the entire public at the same time, not just to a few attending a meeting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d133fdf8af7ed7e81a929aefa9fb736", "text": "The company gets it worth from how well it performs. For example if you buy company A for $50 a share and it beats its expected earnings, its price will raise and lets say after a year or two it can be worth around $70 or maybe more.This is where you can sell it and make more money than dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ca3c5ec07188a8c92c46fb578d192c7", "text": "Converting the comment from @MD-Tech into answer How or where could I find info about publicly traded companies about how stock owner friendly their compensation schemes are for their board and officers? This should be available in the annual report, probably in a directors' remunerations section for most companies", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbc54297aa25d0a851d8421cd7854b7c", "text": "\"In the Income Statement that you've linked to, look for the line labeled \"\"Net Income\"\". That's followed by a line labeled \"\"Preferred Dividends\"\", which is followed by \"\"Income Available to Common Excl. Extra Items\"\" and \"\"Income Available to Common Incl. Extra Items\"\". Those last two are the ones to look at. The key is that these lines reflect income minus dividends paid to preferred stockholders (of which there are none here), and that's income that's available to ordinary shareholders, i.e., \"\"earnings for the common stock\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9e517b057c846a126b3111f8bf8c6e53	Is giving my girlfriend money for her mortgage closing costs and down payment considered fraud?	[ { "docid": "5f793e64619728cad373c2d70d60dcd4", "text": "\"With the standard \"\"I am not a lawyer\"\" disclaimer, consider this question: If you and your girlfriend split up sometime after purchasing the house but before getting married, would you expect her to repay you for the closing costs and downpayment? That is, if you write her a check for $5k, and 6 months after she signs the papers for the house one of you decides to break up with the other, would you expect her to write you a check for $5k in return? That is the difference between \"\"a gift\"\" and \"\"a loan disguised as a gift\"\". If the answer is no, you don't expect it back, then everything is fine and you're in the clear - it's perfectly legal to give someone money. If the answer is yes, you would want to be \"\"paid back\"\", then it's not a gift and you run the risk of running afoul of the regulations. With respect to a previous answer about \"\"gifting money that is not taxed\"\", in the US one person can give another up to $14,000 without worrying about gift taxes, and even in the event that you exceed that amount, the excess would simply eat into the lifetime exemption of $5,250,000. (Individual states may have different rules and exempt amounts that would apply to state taxes.) Please also consider the income issue for your \"\"rental agreement\"\". Your GF would be expected to declare that amount and pay income tax on it as a business. She might also declare part of that amount as expected income for purposes of securing the loan, but that may run into its own issues (you're not a roommate, and presumably the home is not a duplex or set up as apartments, and presumably she would not offer a similar deal to someone other than you).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "773fc0ae59fbccb280948366988d9149", "text": "When you purchase a mortgage, you have to prove the source of your down payment. Primarily this is so that the mortgage lender knows that there are no other outstanding liens against the property. If you show that some or part of your down payment was a gift, there is no fraud, but it may affect your qualification for the mortgage. Consult a lawyer in your area to determine if there is a legal way to gift the money that is not taxed. If all else fails you could just pay the tax. Also, you should research whether your gift is above the floor of taxable gifts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f00d237c510ee03758af5737bdc16f8", "text": "\"you have 2 concerns: the lender and the irs. either way you should be fine the lender just wants to know that you have no legal claim to the property or other compensation. simply signing a gift declaration should clear that up, making this a \"\"gift\"\" from their perspective. they probably have some standard form you can sign. otherwise, just a simple note that says \"\"i, so-and-so, gave whats-er-name x$ on the y of june, 20## as a gift, with no expectation of repayment\"\". then, only way you could get charged with \"\"fraud\"\" is if you seek compensation for this \"\"gift\"\" in the future. even then, the bank would probably have to find out about the compensation and complain pretty strongly to get a prosecutor interested in a small dollar misrepresentation case with little or no provable intent. a bigger concern is the bank being uncomfortable with the future renter also giving a gift. that just \"\"smells weird\"\". and bankers hate anything weird. it probably won't prevent the mortgage from getting approved, but it might delay the underwriters a few days while the wring their hands about it. the irs is a bit more complicated. they tend to be the \"\"heads we win, tails you lose\"\" types. assuming they consider this a gift, then you are fine, since it is under the annual gift exclusion (~14k$ these days); you don't even have to tell them about it. however, if she gives you a large financial gift in the near future, they may decide to interpret those two events as a single transaction turning this into a no interest loan. even then, you should be fine since the irs generally doesn't care about loans under 100k$ with \"\"missing\"\" interest under 1k$/yr. since this is a small loan and interest rates are so low, you have no worries. further irs reading on gift loans: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7872\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6961ad28f9d25e08a12241f0a82ed1c", "text": "It's a gift if there are no strings attached. If you are rationalizing it to try to make it a gift for tax or any other purpose when there really is a connection between the transactions, or when you expect any kind of value or benefit in return for it, then it's not a gift... don't make it one and don't call it one. That would indeed likely be fraud. Play be the rules and sleep easy, is how I like to live.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e358964ef4d8854056def7c4295833a4", "text": "\"Sheesh, are people kidding here? It's a gift. It's not fraud. Just keep in mind that, because it's a gift, you cannot get it \"\"back\"\" if you break up--you are giving it to her. If you happen to get married at some point in the future, you will then own part of the apartment, but that is a completely separate matter. Give her the money, don't expect it back. Ever.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18a4acfd33c5b0a9aca4a2a2e35d466f", "text": "The issue here is that the transaction (your funds to her account) looks very similar to the rent payments which you plan to make in the future. Those rental payments (if deemed to be commercial) would normally be subject to tax. Consider the scenario where rather than an up front $5000, and $5000 over 2 years, you paid her $10000, and paid no rent. That might be an attempt to avoid paying tax. A commercial transaction can't be re-labeled as a gift just based on your election - the transaction needs to be considered as a whole. However, an interest free, unsecured loan connected with you paying rent at market rate would be (depending on local laws) simply foolish (to some extent). I don't think you are able to structure the transaction as a joint purchase (since the mortgage will prevent her from allocating a part of the property to you). Its also likely that you can live in her house and contribute an adequate amount to the household costs without creating a taxable income for her. For example in the UK, up to ~£4000 pa rental income generated from the property in which you reside does not need to be declared. You need to identify the scenarios where your particular arrangement could be imagined as resulting in a taxable or potentially taxable event - then make sure you are not avoiding those events just by choosing how you label the events.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a86f8a46f42233c11e7ebf54dfaf9ac", "text": "Regarding the mortgage company, they will want to know where the down payment came from, and as long as you are honest about it, there is no fraud. It's possible that the mortgage company may have some reservations about the deal now that they know where the down payment came from, but that will depend on the size of the deal and other factors. If everyone involved has decent credit, and this is a fairly standard mortgage, it will probably have no impact at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b941bee9339eba902aae32a50f75393e", "text": "Omg, the answer is easy. Tell the TRUTH, and nothing is fraud. Down payment gifts are SOP's, and every lender works with that. EACH lender has their own rules. Fannie May and Freddie Mac could care less, and FHA and VA backed loans allow for full gifting unless the buyer's credit is below the standard 620, then 3.5% must come from the buyer. Standard bank loans want to know the source of the down payment for ONE REASON ONLY: to know if the buyer is taking ON A NEW DEBT! The only thing you will need do is sign a legal document stating the entire down payment is a gift. That way the bank knows their lendee isn't owing a new substantial debt, and that there aren't two lenders on the house, because should she default, the bank will have to pay you back first off the resale. Get it? They just want to know how many hands are in the fire.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39144d63f163fe2999ab1b3774ebda0e", "text": "There is not any fraud involved. Anybody can gift money to another person.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b75e922955ba35d021aa1fdbfdaeebc", "text": "\"There are several areas of passive fraud by being unclear on what you are doing. When a citizen buys a house, the mortgage lender wants all the details as to how the buyer rounded up the money. That is so they can use their own formulas to assess the buyer's creditworthiness and the probability that the buyer will be able to keep up on payments, taxes and maintenance; or have they overextended themselves. The fraud is in the withholding of that info. By way of tricking them into making a favorable decision, when they might not have if they'd had all the facts. Then there's making this sound all lovey-dovey, good intentions, no strings attached, no expectations. You're lying to yourself. What you've actually done is put money between yourselves, because you have not laid down FAIR rules to cover every possibility. You're not willing to plan for failure because you don't want to admit failure is possible, which is vain. Once you leap into this bell jar, the uncertainty of \"\"what happens if...\"\" will intrude itself into everyone's thoughts, slowly corroding your relationship. It's a recipe for disaster. That uncertainty puts her in a very uncomfortable position. She has to labor to make sure the issue doesn't explode, so she's tiptoeing around you to avoid fights. Every fight, she'll wonder if you'll play the breakup card and threaten to demand the money back. The money will literally come between you. This is what money does. Thinking otherwise is a young person's mistake of inexperience. Don't take my word on it, contact Suze Orman and see what she says. Your lender is also not going to like those poorly defined lovers' promises, because they've seen it all before, and don't want to yet again foreclose on a house that fighting lovers trashed. (it's like, superhero battles are awesome unless you own the building they trashed.) This thing can still be done, but to remove this fraud of wishful thinking, you need to scrupulously plan for every possibility, agree to outcomes that are fair and achievable, put it in writing and share it with a neutral third party. You haven't done it, because it seems like it would be awkward as hell - and it will be! - Or it will test your relationship by forcing direct honesty about a bunch of things you haven't talked about or are afraid to - and it will! - And to be blunt, your relationship may not be able to survive that much honesty. But if it does, you'll be in much better shape. The other passive fraud is taxes. By not defining the characteristics of the payment, you fog up the question of how your contribution will be taxed (if it will be taxed). A proper contract with each other will settle that. (there's an argument to be made for involving a tax advisor in the design of that contract, so that you can work things to your advantage.) As an example, defining the payment as \"\"rent\"\" is about the worst you could do, as you will not be able to deduct any home expenses, she will need to pay income tax on the rent, but she can cannot take landlord's tax deductions on anything but the fraction of the house which is exclusively in your control; i.e. none.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3965ebcc47d710ff6853b5136b318382", "text": "\"The seriousness of your situation depends on whether your girlfriend was owed a refund for each tax return she failed to file, or whether she owed additional money. If she owed money on one or more of the tax returns she failed to file, stop! It is time to consult a lawyer. At the very least, you need to contact an accountant who specialises in this sort of thing. She will owe interest and penalties, and may be liable for criminal prosecution. There are options available and lawyers who specialise in this sort of thing (e.g. this one, from a simple google search). If she is in this position, you need professional help and you need it soon, so you can make a voluntary disclosure and head off criminal prosecution. Assuming the taxes are fairly simple, you are likely looking at a few thousand dollars, but probably less than $7,500, for professional help. There will be substantial penalties assessed as well, for any taxes owing. If you wait until the CRA starts proceedings, you are most likely looking at $10,000 to $50,000, assuming the matter is not too complicated, and would be facing the possibility of a jail term not exceeding five years. If she was due a refund on every single one of the tax returns she failed to file, or at least if she did not owe additional money, you are probably in a situation you can deal with yourself. She will want to file all of the tax returns as soon as possible, but will not be assessed a penalty. I have personally filed taxes several months late a number of times, when I was owed a refund. You may still want to consider professional help, but it is probably not necessary. Under no circumstances should she allow her father near her finances again, ever. You should also be careful to trust any responses to this question, including my response, because we are unlikely to be professional accountants (I certainly am not). You are well outside the abilities of an H&R Block \"\"accountant\"\" in this matter and need a real certified accountant and/or a lawyer who specialises in Failure To File cases.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4dda835616037c706767369d1efac27a", "text": "\"See \"\"Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited.\"\" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal. Let me offer a pre-emptive \"\"I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, \"\"We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,\"\" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right.\"\" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae78b765445388e78ff43a789df3076b", "text": "\"Disclaimer: I am a law student, not a lawyer, and don't claim to have a legal opinion one way or another. My answer is intended to provide a few potentially relevant examples from case law in order to make the point that you should be cautious (and seek proper advice if you think that caution is warranted). Nor am I claiming that the facts in these cases are the same as yours; merely that they highlight the flexible approach that the courts take in such cases, and the fact that this area of law is complicated. I don't think it is sensible to just assume that there is no way that your girlfriend could acquire property rights as a rent paying tenant if arranged on an informal basis with no evidence of the intention of the arrangement. One of the answers mentions a bill which is intended to give non-married partners more rights than they have presently. But the existence of that bill doesn't prove the absence of any existing law, it merely suggests a possible legal position that might exist in the future. A worst-case assumption should also be made here, since you're considering the possibility of what can go wrong. So let's say for the sake of the argument that you have a horrible break up and your girlfriend is willing to be dishonest about what the intentions were regarding the flat (e.g. will claim that she understood the arrangement to be that she would acquire ownership rights in exchange for paying two thirds of the monthly mortgage repayment). Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 - Defendant had property in the name of himself and his brother. Claimant paid nothing towards the purchase price or towards mortgage payments, but paid various outgoings and expenses. The court found a constructive trust in favor of the claimant, who received a 50% beneficial interest in the property. Abbot v Abbot [2007] UKPC 53, [2008] 1 FLR 1451 - Defendant's mother gifted land to a couple with the intention that it be used as a matrimonial home. However it was only put into the defendant's name. The mortgage was paid from a joint account. The claimant was awarded a 50% share. Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752, [2014] 1 FLR 238 - Defendant was a council tenant. Later, she formed a relationship with the claimant. They subsequently decided to buy the house from the council, but it was done in the defendant's name. The defendant had paid all the rent while a tenant, and all the mortgage payments while an owner, as well as all utility bills. The claimant sometimes contributed towards the council tax and varying amounts towards general household expenses (housekeeping, children, etc.). During some periods he paid nothing at all, and at other times he did work around the house. Claimant awarded 10% ownership. Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch), [2012] 2 FCR 435 - The defendant purchased a property in her sole name 10 years after the couple had separated. The claimant helped her convert the property into a house. He did much of the manual work himself, lent his machinery, and contributed financially to the costs. He was awarded a 25% share. Leeds Building Society v York [2015] EWCA Civ 72, [2015] HLR 26 (p 532) - Miss York and Mr York had a dysfunctional and abusive relationship and lived together from 1976 until his death in 2009. In 1983 Mr York bought a house with a mortgage. He paid the monthly mortgage repayments and other outgoings. At varous times Miss York contributed her earnings towards household expenses, but the judge held that this did \"\"not amount to much\"\" over the 33 year period, albeit it had helped Mr York being able to afford the purchase in the first place. She also cooked all the family meals and cared for the daughter. She was awarded a 25% share. Conclusion: Don't make assumptions, consider posting a question on https://law.stackexchange.com/ , consider legal advice, and consider having a formal contract in place which states the exact intentions of the parties. It is a general principle of these kinds of cases that the parties need to have intended for the person lacking legal title to acquire a beneficial interest, and proof to the contrary should make such a claim likely to fail. Alternatively, decide that the risk is low and that it's not worth worrying about. But make a considered decision either way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30ad621797b92569cef86bde4d7261c8", "text": "A bank is putting money on the line for you when they loan you money, which is not something they have to do. Not telling them what you intend to do with the money they are giving you, when asked, is fraud, which if you are caught will put you into very deep trouble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0e42866e18ab51395e88ba021614b7d", "text": "I'm not going to speculate on the nature of your relationship with your wife, but the fact that you are worried about what would happen in the event of a divorce is a bit concerning. Presumably you married her with the intent of staying together forever, so what's the big deal if you spend 50k upgrading the house you live in, assuming you won't get divorced? Now, if you really are worried about something happening in the future, you might want to seek legal advice about the content of the prenup. I am guessing if the 400k were your assets before marriage, you have full claim to that amount in the event of a divorce. If you document the loan, or make some agreement, I would think you would have claim to at least some of the house's appreciation due to the renovations if they were made with your money. *obligatgory IANAL", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf29d950fdc42da450810e87d3e1eac", "text": "\"I am not aware of any place that the tax forms ask, \"\"How many people live in your house?\"\" They ask how many dependants you have, and not everyone who lives in your house is your dependant. There are very specific rules about that. If your girlfriend is being claimed as a dependent on her parents' tax return, then she cannot also be claimed on anyone else's return, and there's no need to investigate further. To claim someone as a dependent, they have to meet a number of conditions. I am not a lawyer. See IRS Publication 17. But the gist of it is that they must, (a) either be a relative (there's a list of what sorts of relatives qualify) or live with you all year; (b) Living with you must not violate local law; (c) Must make less than $4000 per year; and (d) You must provide over half of their support. Your girlfriend may meet the \"\"live with you all year\"\" or maybe not. But the real stumper is likely to be (d). Unless your parents are paying her tuition, they almost certainly don't meet this test.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "150d853bef67f7c0cfaf4db82a35ec24", "text": "If it's real, it's illegal. She needs someone to be a middle man who transfers money and doesn't ask questions. The list of possible reasons should be plenty obvious and range anywhere from fraud to terrorism. There are thousands of ways to get already transferred money back from your account. If the source of the money is some kind of fraud that's only detected 2 years later, someone will ask you for the money back in 2 years. If real people who operate within legal and moral boundaries want to pay someone, they do not ask someone on Facebook to do it for them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef2668e5dfd3f9f52e5e571b9638c4c7", "text": "\"That wasn't an \"\"inheritance\"\" that arrived out of the blue and the \"\"bank\"\" contacted your girlfriend by email, was it? A UK tax code is basically an assessment of how much money you can earn in the UK before you have to pay tax on it - basically it's a coding for a tax allowance and as a UK tax payer HMRC (the UK version of the IRS) gives you one for free. If your girlfriend is not a UK tax payer she should get the necessary paperwork to show that she isn't, although I'm not sure if that's got any bearing on inheritance tax. There are no lawyers involved in that process normally, any appropriately accredited accountant can do that for you in the UK if you're not in the UK. When I had to apply for a change of tax status in the UK it certainly didn't cost me $9.6k to do so via my accountant there. In fact the whole thing cost a few pounds to pay for my accountant's time and that was it. In fact, that whole thing smells fishy to me as someone who used to live in the UK. Care to divulge the name and possibly address of the bank? Here's inheritance tax information straight from the horse's mouth. That should clear up any questions if your girlfriend is even liable for any inheritance tax in the UK in the first place. And then, given the sums involved, get the recommendation for a good lawyer and a good accountant in the UK (or an accountant who can recommend a lawyer) to make sure that that end of the transfer goes smoothly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ed3a82a920a14a749d37bafde0dd4d9", "text": "A non-cash transaction will not be a problem. The bank will have to fill out federal paperwork if there are large amounts of cash involved. This is to stop the underground economy. This can even extend to non-banks. If you were to walk into a car dealer or some other stores and hand them a bag of cash they will also report it. You can do what you propose without having to transfer any money between accounts. Your girlfriend can put the furniture and landscaping on her credit card, or write checks to the stores or companies. Based on the number of questions on this site regarding how to transfer funds between banks and accounts, the mechanics of the transfer is the hard part. Resist the urge to use cash to make the transfer. That will require paperwork. Many people find that the old standard of using checks to transfer funds is easy, safe and quick.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db0221308f2e18423acbf06d86c2cda6", "text": "What you are doing is unethical and illegal but is very hard to catch and prosecute. The key thing for an unethical person to think about here is insurance. For most government incentive programs you have to have the intention to live there. It is extremely hard to prove intent - unless you ask this question under your name on a public forum that is archived by many search engines and maintains a log of all changes. For other folks, it is common for them to claim that they intended to take residence but were surprised that their finances didn't work the way they anticipated. Still, as long as the bank is paid, it is unlikely that they will investigate. However, what happens if there is a major repair needed? You have insurance - because your bank has asked for proof of insurance before they will give a mortgage. That insurance is for an owner occupied building, which you do not have. Your insurance will inspect your claim. If the circumstances do not match what you are insured for because you have lied to the insurance company, they will not pay your claim - which they are entitled to do. You are operating uninsured with tenants. This is a hidden risk you may not be considering. Tenants do not treat property with the same care as an owner - this is why they are insured differently. You are now paying for insurance that you will have a difficult time ever filing a claim on. In addition, if something were to happen that makes it time to claim the insurance value so that you can pay off the mortgage, the insurance company will investigate. They may very easily refuse to pay your fraudulent claim. They may refer you to the police for insurance fraud. The bank will want their money. If they discover that you were not occupying the property, they may just foreclose. They may also notify the government that you were not occupying the property, at which point some one might search and find that you were showing intent to defraud the program out of money that is free for you but gotten through deception. Consider a less risky unethical path like telling people you've been locked out of your car and just need a little money to pay the locksmith to open it. You promise to pay them right back once you get in your car where your wallet is. Then take their money and go find another sucker. It's ethically equivalent and you are much less likely to go to jail. However you have to face the people you are deceiving for money, so you may feel less comfortable. Good luck making your decisions!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee25de70ae32a532f1c8f04baf184b60", "text": "Unless the taxes are above 3000 per year it looks like a good deal to buy (the 30 year mtg) You could also consider getting the 30 year loan and add additional principal to your payments. It looks like your PMI might be about $50 per month. You will get to deduct over $3000 in interest payments the first year as well as the real estate taxes. Depending on your tax rate that might be something like $100 per month or so of incentive to chose buying over renting. The big issue to consider is the risk of big ticket items to repair. You should keep a fund for this kind of thing... water heater, roof, fridge, cesspool, etc. good luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "562c42a443fff22c390f5e45bb7d2402", "text": "\"Maybe a bit off topic, but I suggest reading \"\"Rich Dad Poor Dad\"\" by Robert Kiyosaki. An investment is something that puts money to your pocket. If your properties don't put money to your pocket (and this seems to be the case), then they're not an investment. Instead, they drain money from you pocket. Therefore you should instead turn these \"\"investments\"\" into real investments. Make everything to earn some money using them, not to earn money somewhere else to cover the loses they create. If that's not possible, get rid of them and find something that \"\"puts money into your pocket\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ff598a1b01390157a12d8f6e8956f91e	Freelancing and getting taxes taken out up front instead of end of year?	[ { "docid": "cf3539f86c66a80f473878e2c84b1c32", "text": "\"It seems that you think you are freelancing, and they think you are an employee. What's bad for you, the tax office will also think you are an employee if they withhold tax for you. Alternatively, they think you are stupid, and they keep the money, but are actually not paying it to the tax office at all, in which case you will have a bad surprise when you do your tax returns. First, I'd ask them for proof that they are indeed paying these taxes into some account related to you. I'd then ask a tax adviser for some serious advice. If they are acting out of incompetence and not out of malice, then you should be mostly fine, but your work there will count as employment. Heaven knows why they treat you as an employee. Check your contract with them; whether it is between you and them or your company and them. It maybe that they never hired a contractor and believe that they have to pay employment tax. They don't. If your company sends them a bill, then they need to pay that bill, 100% of it, and that's it. Taxes are fully your business and your responsibility. As \"\"quid\"\" said, if they say they are withholding tax, then at the very least there must be a paystub that proves they have actually been paying these taxes. If they withhold taxes, and there is no paystub, then this looks like a criminal attempt to cheat you. If they have actually paid taxes properly into your account, then they are merely creating a mess that can hopefully be fixed. But it is probably complicated enough that you need a tax advisor, even if you had none before, since instead of paying to your company, they paid some money to the company, and some to you personally.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acbac83c34259f4b1376602914b038fe", "text": "Maybe I can explain a little clearer: Your LLC is not a person, and cannot have taxes withheld on its behalf. Therefore, anyone paying your company should not withhold taxes. If they are paying you directly, and withholding taxes, they are treating you as an employee, and will probably issue a W2 instead of a 1099. Put it this way: Your LLC is a separate company providing services to that company. They shouldn't withhold taxes any more than they would when paying their ISP, or power company.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "734867313a623f2f57edf5c18acbae18", "text": "Yes, you need to include income from your freelance work on your tax return. In the eyes of the IRS, this is self-employment income from your sole-proprietorship business. The reason you don't see it mentioned in the 1040EZ instructions is that you can't use the 1040EZ form if you have self-employment income. You'll need to use the full 1040 form. Your business income and expenses will be reported on a Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ, and the result will end up on Line 12 of the 1040. Take a look at the requirements at the top of the C-EZ form; you probably meet them and can use it instead of the more complicated C form. If you have any deductible business expenses related to your freelance business, this would be done on Schedule C or C-EZ. If your freelance income was more than $400, you'll also need to pay self-employment tax. To do this, you file Schedule SE, and the tax from that schedule lands on form 1040 Line 57.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60833091fb5f878a8610f7b5990ddb4e", "text": "This is how a consulting engagement in India works. If you are registered for Service Tax and have a service tax number, no tax is deducted at source and you have to pay 12.36% to service tax department during filing (once a quarter). If you do not have Service tax number i.e. not registered for service tax, the company is liable to deduct 10% at source and give the same to Income Tax Dept. and give you a Form-16 at the end of the financial year. If you fall in 10% tax bracket, no further tax liability, if you are in 30%, 20% more needs to be paid to Income Tax Dept.(calculate for 20% tax bracket). The tax slabs given above are fine. If you fail to pay the remainder tax (if applicable) Income Tax Dept. will send you a demand notice, politely asking you to pay at the end of the FY. I would suggest you talk to a CA, as there are implications of advance tax (on your consulting income) to be paid once a quarter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "272c1189f6b81cda441a31fe99abf709", "text": "You can use the ITR 1 and declare the income from freelancing as income from other sources. As part of freelancing, certain expenses can be deducted provided they are directly related to work and have proper records. Please consult a CA who can advice you on how to do this. The Actual income shown should be less of the expenses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "046c3a367b30527c5d320c397e8de7c7", "text": "If you are in the US and a regular employee, this will have to show up on your year-end W2 form as income. If it doesn't, there is some funky accounting business going and you should probably consult a professional for advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3267da06090af6e036fcf7b12ec78df", "text": "\"I agree with some of the points of the other answers but why not avoid all the guesswork? I highly recommend you not charge him now. Wait until the end of the year when you have much more information about both of your companies and then you can run the numbers both ways and decide if it would benefit you (collectively). If either of your businesses runs on a cash basis and you decide to invoice, just make sure the check is deposited before Dec 31. Update: If you want to do this for 2016, at least your husband's business would have to be using an accrual basis (since it's too late to take the deduction on a cash basis). Simply run the numbers both ways and see if it helps you. If it doesn't help enough to warrant it for 2016 you could rerun the numbers near the end of 2017 to see if it helps then. Diclaimer: I think it's OK to do this type of manipulation for the scenario you described since you have done (or are doing) the work and you are charging a reasonable fee, but realize that you shouldn't manipulate the amount of the invoice, or fabricate invoices. For example, you shouldn't ever think about such things as: \"\"If I invoice $50K instead of $3K, will that help us?\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45315a7f2e7a30b391efa8918d80a94a", "text": "\"We will bill our clients periodically and will get paid monthly. Who are \"\"we\"\"? If you're not employed - you're not the one doing the work or billing the client. Would IRS care about this or this should be something written in the policy of our company. For example: \"\"Every two months profits get divided 50/50\"\" They won't. S-Corp is a pass-through entity. We plan to use Schedule K when filing taxes for 2015. I've never filled a schedule K before, will the profit distributions be reflected on this form? Yes, that is what it is for. We might need extra help in 2015, so we plan to hire an additional employee (who will not be a shareholder). Will our tax liability go down by doing this? Down in what sense? Payroll is deductible, if that's what you mean. Are there certain other things that should be kept in mind to reduce the tax liability? Yes. Getting a proper tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to explain to you what S-Corp is, how it works, how payroll works, how owner-shareholder is taxed etc etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef0a5efb611d5ac6305005c10dcb6de1", "text": "The only way you will incur underpayment penalties is if you withhold less than 90% of the current year's tax liability or 100% of last years tax liability (whichever is smaller). So as long as your total tax liability last year (not what you paid at filing, but what you paid for the whole year) was more than $1,234, you should not have any penalty. What you pay (or get back) when you file will be your total tax liability less what was withheld. For example, you had $1,234 withheld from your pay for taxes. If after deduction and other factors, your tax liability is $1,345, you will owe $111 when you file. On the other hand, if your tax liability is only $1,000, you'll get a refund of $234 when you file, since you've had more withheld that what you owe. Since your income was only for part of the year, and tax tables assume that you make that much for the whole year, I would suspect that you over-withheld during your internship, which would offset the lack of withholding on the other $6,000 in income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e049953420e0a257e711543060774db", "text": "HMRC calls it: Averaging for creators of literary or artistic works, and it is the averaging of your profits for 2 successive years. It's helpful in situations like you describe, where income can fluctuate wildly from year to year, the linked article has the full detail, but some of the requirements are: You can use averaging if: you’re self-employed or in a partnership, and the business started before 6 April 2014 and didn’t end in the 2015 to 2016 tax year your profits are wholly or mainly from literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works or from designs you or your business partner (if you’re in a partnership) created the works personally. Additionally: Check that your profit for the poorer year, minus any adjusted amounts, is less than 75% of the figure for your better year. If it is, you can use averaging. Then, check if the difference between your profits for the 2 years is more than 30% of your profit for the better year. If it is, work out the average by adding together the profits for the 2 years, and divide the total by 2.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91bf2685d76dc455ccccee5fe87b85e3", "text": "Depending on how much freelance work we're talking about you could set up a limited company, with you and your wife as directors. By invoicing all your work through the limited company (which could have many other benefits for you, an accountant/advisor would... well, advise...) it's the company earning the money, not you or her personally. You can then pay your wife up to £10,000 per year (as of writing this) without income tax kicking in. You would probably have to pay yourself a small amount to minimise exposure to HMRC's snooping, but possibly not... as far as I'm aware the rules do not state anything about working for free, for yourself - and I wouldn't worry about the ethics, you're already paying plenty into HMRC's bank account through your day job! Some good information here if you're interested: https://www.whitefieldtax.co.uk/web/psc-guide/pscguide-how-does-it-all-work-in-practice-salaries-and-dividends/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa6ac06db3552d08eda4e4d6ff3339b3", "text": "Your freelance income will not qualify you for the work-from-home deductions, for that you would need a T2200 form signed by your employer. But, you are allowed to be self employed as a sole-proprietorship while still being an employee of another company. If you take that route, you'll be able to write-off even more expenses than those you linked to. Things like a portion of your internet bill can be claimed, for example. But note that these deductions would only apply to offset the self-employment income, so if you're not earning very much from the freelance work, it might not be worth all the hassle. Filing taxes when self-employed is definitely more complicated, and many people will get professional tax preparation help - at least for the first time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e14cb4c06d785d9ab927ff0914196dcc", "text": "This is wrong. It should be or Now, to get back to self-employment tax. Self-employment tax is weird. It's a business tax. From the IRS perspective, any self-employed person is a business. So, take your income X and divide by 1.0765 (6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare). This gives your personal income. Now, to calculate the tax that you have to pay, multiply that by .153 (since you have to pay both the worker and employer shares of the tax). So new calculation or they actually let you do which is better for you (smaller). And your other calculations change apace. And like I said, you can simplify Q1se to and your payment would be Now, to get to the second quarter. Like I said, I'd calculate the income through the second quarter. So recalculate A based on your new numbers and use that to calculate Q2i. or Note that this includes income from both the first and second quarters. We'll reduce to just the second quarter later. This also has you paying for all of June even though you may not have been paid when you make the withholding payment. That's what they want you to do. But we aren't done yet. Your actual payment should be or Because Q2ft and Q2se are what you owe for the year so far. Q1ft + Q1se is what you've already paid. So you subtract those from what you need to pay in the second quarter. In future quarters, this would be All that said, don't stress about it. As a practical matter, so long as you don't owe $1000 or more when you file your actual tax return, they aren't going to care. So just make sure that your total payments match by the payment you make January 15th. I'm not going to try to calculate for the state. For one thing, I don't know if your state uses Q1i or Q1pi as its base. Different states may have different rules on that. If you can't figure it out, just use Q1i, as that's the bigger one. Fix it when you file your annual return. The difference in withholding is going to be relatively small anyway, less than 1% of your income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb6a63bb1abd8ee6d5c4b1cde0087a9f", "text": "I took littleadv's advice and talked to an accountant today. Regardless of method of payment, my US LLC does not have to withhold taxes or report the payment as payments to contractors (1099/1042(S)) to the IRS; it is simply a business expense. He said this gets more complicated if the recipient is working in the US (regardless of nationality), but that is not my case", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf1c0c8f4ce07239858da167fbbcade1", "text": "You can and are supposed to report self-employment income on Schedule C (or C-EZ if eligible, which a programmer likely is) even when the payer isn't required to give you 1099-MISC (or 1099-K for a payment network now). From there, after deducting permitted expenses, it flows to 1040 (for income tax) and Schedule SE (for self-employment tax). See https://www.irs.gov/individuals/self-employed for some basics and lots of useful links. If this income is large enough your tax on it will be more than $1000, you may need to make quarterly estimated payments (OR if you also have a 'day job' have that employer increase your withholding) to avoid an underpayment penalty. But if this is the first year you have significant self-employment income (or other taxable but unwithheld income like realized capital gains) and your economic/tax situation is otherwise unchanged -- i.e. you have the same (or more) payroll income with the same (or more) withholding -- then there is a 'safe harbor': if your withholding plus estimated payments this year is too low to pay this year's tax but it is enough to pay last year's tax you escape the penalty. (You still need to pay the tax due, of course, so keep the funds available for that.) At the end of the first year when you prepare your return you will see how the numbers work out and can more easily do a good estimate for the following year(s). A single-member LLC or 'S' corp is usually disregarded for tax purposes, although you can elect otherwise, while a (traditional) 'C' corp is more complicated and AIUI out-of-scope for this Stack; see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/business-structures for more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2355fd290d4917d14f57a1c73572a49", "text": "Not as you suggest. Since you are sole prop, you are taxed on a cash basis. Within reason, you can prepay vendors - so temp to hire through an agency might appear more attractive than direct hire. But there needs to be a justification other than avoidance of taxes. So pre-paying 100k on 12/25 would look fishy as fuck. Plus your quality of candidate will suffer if you need anything other than low skill labor. Look at your other fully deductible expenses - anything you can prepay-prepay. For example, I set my liability insurance renewal January 15 to provide optionality. But it just shifts one year into another .. Means fuckall if you are in the same marginal bracket next year. The IRS has also relaxed depreciation on office technology. Computers are now fully deductible rather than being capitalized. @ 500k revenue you should have a CPA and legal counsel. Simply incorporating isn't tax magic. The purpose is to limit yourersonal liability, not a tax shelter - but shitty things happen once you have employees, don't create the potential for a disgruntled employee lawsuit put your shelter at risk of court judgment. That said, assuming you aren't dumping a hypothetical on the Internet, congrats - for all the headaches, having employees is the ultimate leverage .. it's like a xerox machine for your labor (including loss of fidelity with each copy) ..", "title": "" }, { "docid": "653e490ace6c1b315324cea013d7d9ef", "text": "Not correct. First - when you say they don't tax the reimbursement, they are classifying it in a way that makes it taxable to you (just not withholding tax at that time). In effect, they are under-withholding, if these reimbursement are high enough, you'll have not just a tax bill, but penalties for not paying enough all year. My reimbursements do not produce any kind of pay stub, they are a direct deposit, and are not added to my income, not as they occur, nor at year end on W2. Have you asked them why they handle it this way? It's wrong, and it's costing you.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
0bb28562eba30c58f37a555aa078fc4d	Is the very long-term growth of the stock market bound by aggregate net income?	[ { "docid": "975afab33ca5399d20620a9803c4ba9c", "text": "I am a believer in that theory. My opinion is that over the long term, we can expect 25% of income to reflect the payment on one's mortgage, and if you drew a line over time reflecting the mortgage this represents plus the downpayment, you'd be very close to a median home price. The bubble that occurred was real, but not as dramatic as Schiller's chart implies. $1000 will support a $124K 30yr mortgage, but $209K at 4%. This is with no hype, and exact same supply/demand pressures. The market cap of all US companies adds to about $18T. The total wealth in the US, about $60T. Of course US stocks aren't just held by US citizens, it's a big world. Let me suggest two things - the world is poor in comparison to much of the US. A $100,000 net worth puts you in the top 8% in the world. The implication of this is that as the poorer 90% work their way up from poverty, money will seek investments, and there's room for growth. Even if you looked at a closed system, the US only, the limit, absent bubbles, would be one that would have to put a cap on productivity. In today's dollars we produce more than we did years ago, and less than we will in the future. We invent new things faster than the old ones are obsoleted. So any prognostication that our $18T market can grow to say, $30T, does not need to discuss P/Es or bubbles, but rather the creation of new products and businesses that will increase the total market. To summarize - Population growth (not really discussed), Productivity, and long term reduced Poverty will all keep that boundary to be a growing number. That said, this question may be economic, and not PF, in which case my analysis is bound for the Off-Topic barrel. Fascinating question.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e5c08b35cfcbd50dd86e92a143e7f99e", "text": "Stock prices reflect future expectations of large groups of people, and may not be directly linked to traditional valuations for a number of reasons (not definitive). For example, a service like Twitter is so popular that even though it has no significant revenue and loses money, people are simply betting that it is deeply embedded enough that it will eventually find some way to make money. You can also see a number of cases of IPOs of various types of companies that do not even have a revenue model at all. Also, if there is rapid sales growth in A but B sales are flat, no one is likely to expect future profit growth in B such that the valuation will remain steady. If sales in A are accelerating, there may be anticipation that future profits will be high. Sometimes there are also other reasons, such as if A owns valuable proprietary assets, that will hold the values up. However, more information about these companies' financials is really needed in order to understand why this would be the case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3e39ff25ed01dced50884cf62b30858", "text": "\"A 'indexed guaranteed income certificate' (Market Growth GIC) fits the criteria defined in the OP. The \"\"guaranteed\"\" part of the name means that, if the market falls, your capital is guaranteed (they cover the loss and return all your capital to you); and the \"\"index linked\"\" or \"\"market growth\"\" means that instead of the ROI being fixed/determined when you buy the GIC, the ROI depends on (is linked to) the market growth, e.g. an index (so you get a fraction of profit, which you share with the fund manager). The upside is that you can't 'lose' (lose capital). The fund manager doesn't just share the losses with you, they take/cover all the losses. The downside is that you only make a fraction of whatever profit you might make by investing directly in the market (e.g. in an index fund). Another caveat is that you buy a GIC over some fixed term, e.g. you have to give them you money for a year or more, two years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1ce8250eb72a7472e0fcb696d1dc384", "text": "\"In general, when dealing with quantities like net income that are not restricted to being positive, \"\"percentage change\"\" is a problematic measure. Even with small positive values it can be difficult to interpret. For example, compare these two companies: Company A: Company B: At a glance, I think most people would come away with the impression that both companies did badly in Y2, but A made a much stronger recovery. The difference between 99.7 and 99.9 looks unimportant compared to the difference between 100,000 and 40,000. But if we translate those to dollars: Company A: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.1m, Y3 $100.1m Company B: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.3m, Y3 $120.3m Company B has grown by a net of 20% over two years; Company A by only 1%. If you're lucky enough to know that income will always be positive after Y1 and won't drop too close to zero, then this doesn't matter very much and you can just look at year-on-year growth, leaving Y1 as undefined. If you don't have that guarantee, then you may do better to look for a different and more stable metric, the other answers are correct: Y1 growth should be left blank. If you don't have that guarantee, then it might be time to look for a more robust measure, e.g. change in net income as a percentage of turnover or of company value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00e8698d18a6edb4b5965c3a58a3bfa3", "text": "GDP growth is one of several components of nominal equity returns; the (probably not comprehensive) list includes: Real GDP/earnings growth Inflation Dividend payouts and share buybacks Multiple expansion (the market willing to pay more per dollar of earnings) Changes in interest rate expectations As other comments mention you could also see larger companies tending to deliver higher returns as for any number of reasons related to M&A, expansion into foreign markets, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fd5934bdc397c5a38d18e5334ea2156", "text": "Monetary base and growth are no longer correlated, at least that's what we know from QE in the US. Source, some research I did as an undergrad and papers I can't cite from my phone. But in all seriousness, I doubt there are many mainstream economists that would cite the monetary base as a key driver of growth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "974603438efffb44dbeb13d6df665925", "text": "I don’t know specifics of the situation but one possibility would be that Buffett may have billions in various assets etc companies he owns, stocks bonds, but if he doesn’t sell any of those stocks or cash in any of those bonds, then on paper he didn’t make any money that year because he’s letting the assets appreciate. I would say net income is the amount of income you claimed that year, so if you had sold some stock, the amount of money you sold them for would be your income. As opposed to net worth being “if they wanted to” if Buffett sold all of his stocks and assets, he would be able to get billions for it. So while he technically is worth billions, on his tax returns he doesn’t claim much income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d36523369ec95cd476b356b42b3d32a2", "text": "See the Moneychimp site. From 1934 to 2006, the S&P returned an 'average' 12.81%. But the CAGR was 11.26%. I wrote an article Average Return vs Compound Annual Growth to address this issue. Interesting that over time only a few funds have managed to get anywhere near this return, but the low cost indexer can get the long term CAGR minus .05% or so, if they wish.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "636c82034cad8c30b43c9f13cad4e238", "text": "\"The U.S. economy has grown at just under 3% a year after inflation over the past 50 years. (Some of this occurred to \"\"private\"\" companies that are not listed on the stock market, or before they were listed.) The stock market returns averaged 7.14% a year, \"\"gross,\"\" but when you subtract the 4.67% inflation, the \"\"net\"\" number is 2.47% a year. That gain corresponds closely to the \"\"just under 3% a year\"\" GDP growth during that time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28e5a864f6bc6bba8050209a3d569d11", "text": "\"1. That's a really complicated answer. In short, I think we need to make accounting rules much simpler (I say this as an accountant) in combination with financial education in K-12 school. Most adults in this country can't tell you which is a better investment: something that returns 5% monthly or something that returns 10% annually. They don't know that accounting income and cash flow are different things and what they mean. Accounting rules are sometimes ridiculous. Look at the balance sheet of even a moderate size company. What's in \"\"Other Comprehensive Income\"\" and why is that different than net income? Why is it that American Airlines, one of the largest airlines in the world doesn't have a single airplane on their balance sheet? 2. That might be a step in the right direction, but I'm just not sure how effective something like that would be. More comprehensive might be better, but then there's going to be less people that want to take the time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8df5b3b082821867dd585002bb527be4", "text": "[Here's a link to the actual paper](https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/Piketty-Saez-ZucmanNBER16.pdf) Something I found interesting from it: >Third, we find that the upsurge of top incomes has mostly been a capital-driven phenomenon since the late 1990s. There is a widespread view that rising income inequality mostly owes to booming wages at the top end, i.e., a rise of the “working rich.” Our results confirm that this view is correct from the 1970s to the 1990s. But in contrast to earlier decades, the increase in income concentration over the last fifteen years owes to a boom in the income from equity and bonds at the top. The working rich are either turning into or being replaced by rentiers. Top earners became younger in the 1980s and 1990s but have been growing older since then.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "131aac61bf5067e8aaeace19aae82435", "text": "Great question. Surprisingly, stock returns and GDP growth are mostly unrelated. In fact, they are slightly inversely correlated when you look across countries. Consider a firm that earns $100 on average per year with zero growth. If investors apply a 10% discount rate to this firm, the company will have a market value of $100/10% = $1,000. If it continues to earn $100 per year, it will produce 10% returns despite zero growth in earnings. You can see that realized returns are largely a function of the return investors demand for putting their money in risky assets. I say mostly unrelated because an increase in GDP growth may increase our firms earnings (though the relationship to earnings per share is muddied by new share issuances, buybacks, M&A, etc.). But you can see from the above example that returns can vastly exceed growth in perpetuity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b93de284953fa5486669f0c77bcc3907", "text": "You seem to think that the term “held”is used correctly. There lies your logical fallacy. I made no such assumption. In my question I test both the use of the term “US economy” AND the term “held”. It is obvious you can’t “hold” income but if you want to get down to technicalities, both asset and income/expenses are types of accounts while the notion of “trust” is a legal construct to limit the rights of external creditors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d2d90e1bda83babf879836b40840068", "text": "\"If you look at the biotech breakdown, you'll find a lot of NAs when it comes to P/E since there are many young biotech companies that have yet to make a profit. Thus, there may be something to be said for how is the entire industry stat computed. Biotechnology can include pharmaceutical companies that can have big profits due to patents on drugs. As an example, look at Shire PLC which has a P/E of 1243 which is pretty high with a Market Capitalization of over a billion dollars, so this isn't a small company. I wonder what dot-com companies would have looked like in 1998/1999 that could well be similar as some industries will have bubbles you do realize, right? The reason for pointing out the Market Capitalization is that this a way to measure the size of a company, as this is merely the sum of all the stock of the company. There could be small companies that have low market capitalizations that could have high P/Es as they are relatively young and could be believed to have enough hype that there is a great deal of confidence in the stock. For example, Amazon.com was public for years before turning a profit. In being without profits, there is no P/E and thus it is worth understanding the limitations of a P/E as the computation just takes the previous year's earnings for a company divided by the current stock price. If the expected growth rate is high enough this can be a way to justify a high P/E for a stock. The question you asked about an industry having this is the derivation from a set of stocks. If most of the stocks are high enough, then whatever mean or median one wants to use as the \"\"industry average\"\" will come from that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f988fc7610be7ccd2e8685e75ebb6fe5", "text": "Assuming S&P value as % of GDP doesn't change, to get S&P return you add (Nominal GDP % growth + Dividend Yield) -> S&P return. Historically the S&P has grown faster as corporations of won market share and therefore grown to a larger portion of GDP. While this can continue (or possibly reverse), and can happen globally as well, you are correct in pointing out that it cannot continue ad infinitum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac087fe705c43712747a7c55daaad272", "text": "A lot of these answers are strong, but at the end of the day this question really boils down to: Do you want to own things? Duh, yes. It means you have: By this logic, you would expect aggregate stock prices to increase indefinitely. Whether the price you pay for that ownership claim is worth it at any given point in time is a completely different question entirely.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5c1cf5d2cf0f3c88024e2d024416f124	Personal Loan issuer online service	[ { "docid": "1834382a298667435153f982001a45fa", "text": "http://www.calcamo.net/loancalculator/simulation/fixed-rate-loan.php5 This website is a calculator only and has some extra features that take into account late payments, paying extra to reduce principal, and has the ability to export amortization table to excel that you could use to keep track of the loan. If you are looking for a web site to manage and keep track of the whole process, reminder emails, accepting credit card payments, etc.. paybaq.com may be right for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40c0761122d6cbae95253fc418b16bb6", "text": "It is pretty easy to setup a spreadsheet for calculating interest payments and remaining balance. Do a quick search online. You may want to put it in something like Google Docs, where brother can view the status, but only you can edit it. When you get a payment, a portion goes to interest and another to principle. The formulas will do the work for you. However, I feel that there is a bigger issue. The math may seem like a good deal for the both of you, but I would be very hesitant to loan a family member money. What if he does not pay? What if he is late with a payment and goes on a vacation himself? What if his significant other resents the payment that you collect which precludes her from buying a new TV, etc... People come to hate/resent big corporations that they have to make payments. How much more so one that has a face....that comes over and eats? While this loan is outstanding holidays may never be the same. Is the loan a real need? Are you in a position to give them the money? You may want to consider the latter. Is there a reason he can't just borrow the money from the bank?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5274ce56724302aa26b53670f04d501d", "text": "\"Here is a simple loan payment calculator. If you allow early principal repayment, then you should just be able to plug in the new principal amount to find his new monthly payment (someone please correct me if I'm mistaken). Are you averse to creating a spreadsheet yourself in excel? I suppose it could become quite an undertaking, depending on how detailed you chose to get with the interest. Seems like it would be more direct and serve the dual purpose of recordkeeping. It's important to agree in advance whether pre-payments go to principal or go partly to interest (prepaying for periodic amounts not yet due, which are mixed principal and interest). It's a family loan, so it probably makes sense to allow the prepayments to pay down principal; you don't need to structure your interest income and prevent him from depriving you of interest income (which many bank loans will do). Allowing early principal repayment is pretty easy to calculate in your own excel spreadsheet, since you just need to know the remaining principal, time outstanding, and the interest rate. Note that if you are a US citizen, then the interest paid to you will be taxable income to you (\"\"ordinary income\"\" rate). Your brother will not be able to deduct the interest payments, unless maybe they are used for something like his business or perhaps mortgage. There is no deduction for just a personal loan. Also, if you instead structured it without interest, then the interest not charged would be considered a gift under US gift tax law. As long as the annual interest were under the gift exclusion amount ($14,000) then there would be no gift tax. With no interest and no gift, you would not have tax consequences.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8103ffa9d823e117f04bf741c3b14fff", "text": "Indiabulls. Low brokerage (If you bargain) I'm user of it and I'm getting 25paisa for delivery and 5 paisa for intraday. All transactions can be done online. Also they provide an stand alone application PowerIndiabulls, which is too good and appraised by many users as best in the industry. Not sure about it, but I think Powerindiabulls application is the answer for this. Please have a look at their website for more details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33862a0dd6492e84350b784e04d5685d", "text": "That's the nice thing. You can read the details and even ask the requester questions just as a loan officer would. You can also filter based on criteria. For me, I filter out wedding expenses, trips, home improvement (not repair), vacations and most major purchases. I tend to invest in refinancing (carefully), business expenses, renewable energy project, and educational expenses. That's the nice thing about it, I can support the initiatives that I choose to support.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4831a30bc2ac80476192072ff7683f0a", "text": "Get instant eApproval for your personal loan at Fullerton India & meet your all sorts of financial needs such as furnishing your home or a family holiday, buying your dream vehicle, unexpected expenses by following a simple few steps with minimal documentation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "392f14f45f4b58933e58c78721d76d89", "text": "For reporting to the IRS, every bank account has a primary tax ID number associated with it. When there are multiple joint owners, they (the owners) usually pick a person at random to be the primary, unless there is a large amount of interest involved, in which case I would suggest consulting a tax attorney. As for the online banking, it depends on your institution's software. My institution allows every individual to have a separate ID; if this is important to you (and it would be to me), then look for another bank that offers it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37b695ff640d77ceba0141c96665b118", "text": "Studying seek out internet handheld economic, and there is a number of handheld personal personal loan companies, all the things you want to do will be be sure the net handheld personal giver established fact and also given the green light by customers. Tend not to depend the particular on-site testimonies to be able to evaluate the caliber of the particular program.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f29a91f8306aa4d1ac166445ac5fc43", "text": "\"I think that your best option is to use the internet to look for sites comparing the various features of accounts, and especially forums that are more focused on discussion as you can ask about specific banks and people who have those accounts can answer. \"\"Requests for specific service provider recommendations\"\" are off-topic here, so I won't go into making any of my own bank recommendations, but there are many blogs and forums out there focusing on personal finance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31720da99062e7b85434b76a2d139dc8", "text": "\"I have never seen anything that suggest it's illegal to charge \"\"fair\"\" interests on loans, personally or commercially. Even CRA has long allowed the use of properly written \"\"promissory notes\"\" as the proof for personal loans between individuals, as long as the rates are consistent with their current \"\"subscribed rate\"\" (think bank's prime rate, if you don't want to having to look it up on CRA site). Loan Shark is someone or some entity that charges significantly higher interests than the rates posted by FI's. We are talking about 30+% versus the bank's 10%. Yes, we can argue the FI's are acting like Loan Shark when it comes to credit card interest rates, but that's another discussion.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b74b01f700c046fa5658bca7ef5ff164", "text": "Legally, I can't find any reason that the LLC could not lend money to an individual. However, I believe the simplest course of action is to first distribute money from your company to your personal account, and then make it a personal loan. Whether the loan is done through the business or personally, financially I don't think there is much difference as to which bucket the interest income goes into, since your business and personal income will all get lumped together anyway with a single person LLC. Even if your friend defaults on the loan, either the business or you personally will have the same burden of proof to meet that the loan was not a gift to begin with, and if that burden is met, the deduction can be taken from either side. If a debt goes bad the debtor may be required to report the debt as income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e30eb9c18fbf98afa4e7422d7e6a4c5b", "text": "DIGITALPAY melayani pembukaan loket pembayarann PPOB (Payment Point Online Bank) Transaksinya menjangkau ke seluruh wilayah Indonesia. Transaksi menggunakan program web based system maka akan sangat cepat dan ringan untuk di akses, selain itu jika komputer anda rusak data transaksi tetap aman karena tersimpan di server kami. 100% online dan sistem fee realtime langsung masuk ke saldo/quota di setiap per transaksinya, maka penerimaan fee tidak harus menunggu bulan berikutnya.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3231c7537fb00691c38e465d9885fe0c", "text": "Um really, you expect US to know the answer? Why not ask Wells Fargo? Unless someone here happens to work for WF and has access to the right people, this is more likely a question to send to their support people than to get an answer here that is anything other than a SWAG (and in that line of reasoning, and as a software tester by trade, my money is on the already offered reasoning that it's doing some kind of primative 'bad word' search (probably a regular expression match) and getting a hit on tit. ) In the meantime I suggest an alternative term, how about 'offering'", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6a9e0f25e6a651144af61739899b4ea", "text": "Here's a link with comparison of various online and offline PF software: http://personalfinancesoftwarereviews.com/compare-personal-finance-software/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84a657dad9296d96b50d9c93937e2f0c", "text": "Virtual Credit Card: It there something like virtual credit card? Yes there is. We have banks in India HDFC and Kotak bank that allows you to generate a virtual credit card which could be used for payments on websites. These cards are one time use cards and will expire as soon as you use it once. The mail objective behind such virtual card service is to protect the actually card information to be shared on websites. Take a look: Its call Netsafe and remember HDFC is a very reputed bank in India Moving further about the company Entropay. Take a look at the website. Most of the information you need to know about the company starts from the website data: Lets take a look at the contact us page: Any company that deals in financial services business has to be registered under financial services authority of the country they are doing business in. This company is based in Malta and should definitely be registered with Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA). The company claims that they are registered with FSA under license registration number 540990. Sounds great everything is perfect but just to make sure I thought of taking a look at the MFSA website on the activity of the company. Here's a link: http://www.mfsa.com.mt/ Under License Holder Tried searching for the company Ixaris Systems Ltd. and here is what I found: There was no record of the company on the MFSA database. I even tried not searching and looking into the complete database but no such company on the list. By the way look I found Western Union there: What I mean to say here is only one thing. Any company that deals in financial transactions need to be registered with the local financial services of the country they have their physical address in. If suppose western union is an american company with physical existence in 100 countries they not only have to be registered with Financial Services Authority in US but also in every other countries they have their physical address in. I know many of you will still argue that it has a valid verisign logo which means it's a company with physical address and its been verified. But please remember its very easy to fool those verisign guys coz almost every verification is done online. Also the verisign information of this company shows its a company registered in UK not Malta. Just to be very sure again I also checked the FSA website of UK. There is no such company under FSA regulations even in UK. I would want to give you the answer to your question very boldly but I had a bad experience today on this same website so I would rather allow you make the decision wether its a legit company or a SCAM.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1725f7ef8a360ad6fb97628888e9c1b1", "text": "\"Here's a blog by a guy who is trying to do this: Personal Loan Portfolio And here's another one: bobharris.com Do a quick search for \"\"prosper loan\"\" or \"\"kiva\"\" on blog search.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3bbbdb77d937cff47a2966cd47769a8", "text": "Loan Provider Company in India http://tirupatiinvestservices.com/ We are best Loan Provider Company with flexible plans of returning payments. We give short tenure loans to long-tenure loans. Our Loans are provided for Personal Development, Business Development, Home Development, Mortgage Loan etc. We are among the trusted company in India. We have established our office in Gujarat, Maharashtra and West Bengal. We have been serving in this industry from last 25 years and we are reputed company in the finance sector.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcfd8f7a32848022d5089dd35173acee", "text": "You can take a out loan against your 401k, which means you won't be penalized for the withdrawal. You will have to pay that amount back though, but it can help since the interest will be lower than a lot of credit card rates. You could refinance your home if you can get a reasonable interest rate. You could also get a 0% APR balance transfer credit card and transfer the balance and pay it off that way. There are a lot of options. I would contact a Credit Counselor and explore further options. The main objective is to get you out of debt, not put you more in debt - whether that is refinancing your mortgage, cashing in an annuity, etc.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5697cb941e00b0adfb73c6d44871b32c	Account that is debited and account that is credited	[ { "docid": "bc07ec18c9fb03eee7559c16f4f7175e", "text": "Strictly speaking the terms arise from double entry book keeping terminology, and don't exactly relate to their common English usage, which is part of the confusion. All double entry book keeping operations consist of a (debit, credit) tuple performed on two different books (ledgers). The actual arithmetic operation performed by a debit or a credit depends on the book keeping classification of the ledger it is performed on. Liability accounts behave the way you would expect - a debit is subtraction, and a credit is addition. Asset accounts are the other way around, a debit is an addition, and a credit is a subtraction. The confusion when dealing with banks, partly comes from this classification, since while your deposit account is your asset, it is the bank's liability. So when you deposit 100 cash at the bank, it will perform the operation (debit cash account (an asset), credit deposit account). Each ledger account will have 100 added to it. Similarly when you withdraw cash, the operation is (credit cash, debit deposit). However the operation that your accountant will perform on your own books, is the opposite, since the cash was your asset, and now the deposit account is. For those studying math, it may also help to know that double entry book keeping is one of the earliest known examples of a single error detection/correction algorithm.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00784d70261597cf764bc79c19735260", "text": "Credited to your account means amount has been deposited to your account(this will be your income). Debited from your account means withdrawn from your account(This will be your expense). Hope this clarifies your question. Regards Jayanthi", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d72bedd5ff7f11cf0242512a14f3a0d4", "text": "\"I'm not sure if this is your point of confusion, but when an account is said to be debited (or credited), the words \"\"debited\"\" or \"\"credited\"\" are not referring to a type of account (such as \"\"checking\"\"). They are referring to an operation that is performed on an account. The same account can be credited at one time and debited at another time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5295c9c4c242d39e0504e525c95bdbf", "text": "\"The credit and debit terms here is, talking from bank's point of view (shouldn't be a surprise, banks are never known to look at things from the customers' POV ;)). In accounting, a liability (loans, owners capital etc) is a credit balance and asset (cash, buildings and such) is a debit balance. Your account is a liability to the bank (in accounting parlance that is because they owe you every single penny that is there in your account, btw, in literal parlance too if you really make their life harder ;)) So when the bank accepts money from you, they need to increase their asset (cash) which they will debit (higher debit balance for asset means more assets), and at the same time they also have to account for the added liability by \"\"crediting\"\" the deposited money into your account. So when bank says they have credited your account, it means you have more money in your account. Now, if you transfer money from your account to another, or make a payment through your account, your account will be debited and the beneficiary account will be credited(bank's liability towards you reduces) More or less what everyone else said here... but hey, I could also take a swipe at banks ;))\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "783b84591778a56bc293aceac3976a8c", "text": "\"The terms debit and credit come from double-entry book-keeping. In this system, every transaction is applied against two accounts: it debits one and credits the other by equal amounts. (Or more technically, it affects two or more accounts, and the total of the credits equals the total of the debits.) Whether a debit or a credit adds or subtracts from the balance depends on the type of account. The types of accounts were defined so that it is always possible to have these matching debits and credits. Assets, like cash or property that you own, are \"\"debit accounts\"\", that is, a debit is an increase in the balance of the account. Liabilities, like money you owe, are \"\"credit accounts\"\", that is, a credit is an increase. To get into all the details would require giving a tutorial on double-entry book-keeping, which I think is beyond the scope of a forum post. By a quick Bing search I find this one: http://simplestudies.com/double-entry-accounting-system.html. I haven't gone through it so I can't say if it's a particularly good tutorial. There are plenty of others on the Web and in bookstores. Note that the terminology can be backwards when someone you're doing business with is describing the account, because their viewpoint may be the opposite of yours. For example, to me, my credit card is a liability: I owe the bank money. So when I post a charge, that's a credit, and when I pay it off, that's a debit. But to the bank, my account is an asset: the customer (me) owes them money. So to the bank, a charge is a debit and a payment is a credit.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "88270328b70d71e169a6f12bd3f0c450", "text": "\"When trying to understand accounting, it's always helpful to reference the balance sheet identity, thus , and debits and credits must balance. In this case, one would So that \"\"Cash\"\" is subtracted (credited) from assets, and \"\"Loans to family members\"\" is added (debited) to assets. The income identity is treated differently as So, unless if the \"\"Cash\"\" and \"\"Loans to family members\"\" did not start imbalanced, there was no revenue or expense. A revenue will be any interest paid. The expenses will be any costs related to loaning the money such as drafting a contract or any amount defaulted. Assets are not liabilities A liability on the balance sheet is a liability owed by the entity measured, such as a person or a company. The family members in this case are the borrowers, so they are the ones who must increase their liability accounts like so: The lender to family members would not increase liabilities in this case because the lender is not borrowing from the borrower. Debits, credits, and the balance sheet Debits & credits must be equal, or an identity is violated. Debits add to assets and subtract from liabilities (and equity) while credits subtract from assets and add to liabilities (and equity). If a lender were to try to simultaneously subtract cash from assets and add loans to liabilities to book a loan, the operation would look like this This would cause an immediate imbalance because there are no offsetting debits, but more importantly, crediting Loans to family members as a liability would actually mean that the lender owes Loans to family members.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff1f01787f1d9d15e2d74966d279c124", "text": "When you borrow money - you create a liability to yourself (you credit your Liabilities:Loans account and debit your Asset:Bank account). When you lend money - you create an asset to yourself (you debit your Asset:Loan account and credit your Asset:Bank account).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f1ba13982a5807efb36ceba54ef5776", "text": "Hmm, let's see, I always get Credit and Debit mixed up, but I'll try: Signing of the contract: Receiving 500 deposit: When you are done Accounts Receivable will have $500 (because you are owed $500), Revenue will have $1000 (because you made $1000 on an accrual basis), and Cash will have $500 (because you have $500 in your pocket).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d145cb58025d07fff4622110a9142fbb", "text": "Just to put in one more possibility: my credit card can have a positive balance, in which case I earn interest. If more money is due, it will automatically take that from the connected checking account. If that goes into negative, of course I have to pay interest. I chose (argued with the bank in order to get) only a small credit allowance. However, I'll be able to access credit allowance + positive balance. That allows me within a day or so to make larger amounts accessible, while the possible immediate damage by credit card fraud is limited at other times. Actually, the credit card pays more interest than the checkign account. Nevertheless, I don't keep high balance there because the risk of fraud is much higher for the credit card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24fcd3eab5757b282f1b5f2589ff03ef", "text": "\"I have some money invested on Merrill Edge. 2 days ago I purchased some mutual funds with most of the rest of my money in my account. I logged in today to see how it did, and noticed that there are 3 sections: Priced Investments, Cash & Money Accounts, and Pending Activity. In the Cash & Money section, there shows a negative balance of Cash (let's say -$1,000) and a positive \"\"Money Account Value\"\" (let's say +$1,100). The \"\"Money Account\"\" appears to be made up of $1 shares of something called \"\"ML Direct Deposit Program\"\". However, even though the mutual fund purchase was made 2 days ago, and the shares of the mutual funds are officially in my account, I'm still showing all of my \"\"Money Account\"\" shares ($1000). The balance sheet effectively makes it look like I somehow needed to have \"\"sold\"\" back my money account shares, converted them to cash, and then bought the funds. I'm hoping that isn't the case, and for some reason, there is a multiday lag between me buying stock and money getting deducted from my \"\"Money Account\"\". Hope that all makes sense. TLDR: what's the diff between a Cash account and Money Account that's filled with shares of \"\" ML Direct Deposit Program\"\"? Edit: Today the cash and money account offset by equal values equal to one of my mutual fund purchases.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58348661c55700b23bf1552586d40b29", "text": "Assuming that it's not inventory that is sold in the following year or a depreciable asset, you can deduct it when you make the purchase. The courts have ruled that credit cards balances are considered debt. It's treated the same way as if you went to the bank, got a loan, and used cash or a check to purchase the items. On your accounting books, you would debit the expense account and credit the credit card liability account. This is only for credit cards, which are considered loans. If you use a store charge card, then you cannot deduct it until you pay. Those are considered accounts payable. I'm an IRS agent and a CPA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63de0f546b4e4223a4300761fc8c2f5e", "text": "If you open an account, you sign a contract, of which you get a copy. That ultimately proves that the account exists. As for the money in an account: Double-entry accounting makes it more or less impossible for that to be simply wrong. An account balance is not just a number; it's a sum of transactions, each of which has a corresponding entry in another account where the money came from or went to. What is possible (but extremely rare given the effort banks go to in order to ensure the correctness of their systems) is for transactions to get lost or stuck (because they often have multiple stages), or to have a wrong source or target, or amount. If a transaction gets lost, it's the same as if it never happened - the money is still in the sender's account and you have to convince them to send it to you. If a transaction got stuck, i.e. money was sent but did not arrive, the sender can request their bank to investigate what happened and fix the problem. If an erroneous transaction shows up on your account, you can do the same. Double-entry accounting ensures that this is always possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2e80c349518ee93dd52768ec917fa84", "text": "I would take each of these items and any others and consider how you would count it as an expense in the other direction. If you have an account for parking expenses or general transportation funds, credit that account for a refund on your parking. If you have an account for expenses on technology purchases, you would credit that account if you sell a piece of equipment as you replace it with an upgrade. If you lost money (perhaps in a jacket) how would you account for the cash that is lost? Whatever account would would subtract from put a credit for cash found.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b05298f3563d6864d3393cef31eb4c9", "text": "Based on the definitions I found on Investopedia, it depends on whether or not it is going against an asset or a liability. I am not sure what type of accounting you are performing, but I know in my personal day-to-day dealings credits are money coming into my account and debits are money going out of my account. Definition: Credit, Definition: Debit", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0a0cf5385af2ce94620b5ad4c36a38c", "text": "Looks like you have three options: Outside of this you might need to look for a different type of account. Hope that helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1d4a964cd3d92ab2f64480a644b9111", "text": "\"The term for money owed to you by a company would be a credit balance. Consider, when an item is credited to your account, it's in your favor. Whereas, money you owe to a company may be referred to simply as a balance, or balance owing, or less frequently a debit balance. A related term balance due would be the payment you owe in the current period, i.e. not representative of the entire amount owed. I don't think the terms \"\"positive balance\"\" or \"\"negative balance\"\" are considered idiomatic in business. Rather, accounting terms like debit and credit have taken hold instead – and are often a source of confusion. But I suggest that if you have a negative balance on a credit card, it's a credit balance in your favor. Unless they mix it up.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "301088bb910fa653719b6b302d15f778", "text": "\"In this context, we're talking about terms of art in accounting, specifically double-entry book-keeping. In accounting lingo, an \"\"asset\"\" account represents an actual asset and it's value. So if you buy a car with a loan for $10,000, you apply a $10,000 debit to the asset account and a $10,000 credit to the loan. Debits and credits are confusing when you first start learning about accounting.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d8f1cc1f2ed4c36260ee39f01cc861b", "text": "If one is looking at this from the perspective of a store where debits could be how money comes into the store's account and credit is what has to be paid out to customers, then the employee salaries would also be something going out of the account for the store.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7b5dd2134f0fb5f9c21644d94ebc408", "text": "Account statements and the account information provided by your personal finance software should be coming from the same source, namely your bank's internal accounting records. So in theory one is just as good as the other. That being said, an account statement is a snapshot of your account on the date the statement was created, while synchronizations with your personal finance application is dynamically generated upon request (usually once a day or upon login). So what are the implications of this? Your account statement will not show transactions that may have taken place during that period but weren't posted until after the period ended (common with credit card transactions and checks). Instead they'd appear on the next statement. Because electronic account synchronizations are more frequent and not limited to a specific time period those transactions will show up shortly after they are posted. So it is far easier to keep track of your accounts electronically. Every personal finance software I've ever used supports manual entries so what I like to do is on a daily basis I manually enter any transaction which wasn't posted automatically. This usually only takes a few minutes each evening. Then when the transaction eventually shows up it's usually reconciled with my manually entered one automatically. Aside from finding (infrequent) bank errors this has the benefit of keeping me aware of how much I'm spending and how much I have left. I've also caught a number of cashier errors this way (noticing I was double-charged for an item while entering the receipt total) and its the best defense against fraud and identity theft I can think of. If you're looking at your accounts on a daily basis you're far more likely to notice an unusual transaction than any monitoring service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4250ef625b8db4e0671d6671878c66e2", "text": "\"Debits' and \"\"Credits\"\" are terms used in double-entry bookkeeping. Each transaction is entered in two different places to be able to double-check accuracy. The total debits and total credits being equal is what makes the balance sheet balance. For explaining debits and credits, wikiversity has a good example using eggs that I found helpful as a student. Debits and Credits When a financial transaction is recorded, the Debits (Dr) and Credits (Cr) need to balance in order to keep the accounts in balance. An easy rule to remember is, \"\"Debit the Asset that Increases\"\" For example, if you want to practice accounting for cooking a simple breakfast, you might proceed as follows: To record breaking the eggs and putting the eggs in the frying pan In this transaction, an asset, (the egg) is split into parts and some of the asset goes in the pan and some in the trash. A Debit (Dr) is used to show that the assets in the pan and the trash both increase. A balancing Credit (Cr) is used to show that the amount of assets (whole eggs) in the egg carton has decreased. This transaction is in balance because the total Credits equal the total Debits. Everything that is covered by the Debits (yolk, white and shell) is also covered by the Credits (one whole egg)\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
487a7b0be6c36dc3bb4b9af98dc6be4c	How safe is a checking account?	[ { "docid": "194a463e003ad34bcefb85ba8217cd32", "text": "While Rocky's answer is correct in the big picture there is another factor here to keep in mind: The disruption while you're waiting to resolve it. If a fraudster gets your card and drains your account you'll get your money back--but there will be a period while they are investigating that it won't be available. For this reason I avoid debit card transactions and only use credit cards. If the fraudster gets your credit card you might lose access while they investigate but you don't lose access to your bank account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4acaae1aeb93bdd89b40804f1bc3c73d", "text": "\"Money in a U.S. checking account is FDIC insured, so it's \"\"safe\"\" in the sense that you don't have to worry about a run on the bank or going out of business. Purchase fraud is something else entirely -- you need to check with your bank and see what their policy is for unauthorized charges made with your debit card. Federal rules apply: report fraud within two days and your liability is limited to $50. The maximum liability rises to $500 after that. But many banks have a $0 fraud policy. Look at their web site and see what the policy is for your bank. source: http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2015/05/19/fraud-worries-debit-vs-credit-cards/\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d16ce2d564ec8d4ba4693beacc3f424", "text": "If the checking account is in a FDIC insured bank or a NCUA insured Credit Union then you don't have to worry about what happens if the bank goes out of business. In the past the government has made sure that any disruption was minimal. The fraud issue can cause a bigger problem. If they get a hold of your debit card, they can drain your account. Yes the bank gives you fraud protection so that the most you can lose is $50 or $500; many even make your liability $0 if you report it in a timely manor. But there generally is a delay in getting the money put back in your account. One way to minimize the problem is to open a savings account,it also has the FDIC and NCUA coverage . The account may even earn a little interest. If you don't allow the bank to automatically provide an overdraft transfer from savings to checking account, then the most they can temporarily steal is your checking account balance. Getting a credit card can provide additional protection. It also limits your total losses if there is fraud. The bill is only paid once a month so if they steal the card or the number, they won't be able to drain the money in the bank account. The credit card, if used wisely can also start to build a positive credit file so that in a few years you can get a loan for a car or a place to live. Of course if they steal your entire wallet with both the credit and the debit card...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3d005b0ec91fddd9622700f0599a84d", "text": "US checking accounts are not really secure, though many people use them. One form of check fraud has been highlighted by Prof. Donald Knuth and carried out by Frank Abagnale, as portrayed in the film Catch Me If You Can. Basically, anyone can write a check that would draw from your account merely by knowing your account number and your bank's ABA routing number. With those two pieces of information (which are revealed on every check that you write), anyone can print a working check, either using a laser printer with MICR (magnetic ink character recognition) toner, or by placing an order with a check-printing company. The only other missing element is a signature, which is a pretty weak form of authentication. When presented with such a check, your bank would probably honor it before finding out, too late, that it is fraudulent. A variant of this vulnerability is ACH funds transfers. This is the mechanism through which you could have, say, your utility company automatically withdraw money from your account to pay your bill. Unfortunately, the transfer is initiated by the recipient, and the system relies largely on trust with some statistical monitoring for suspicious patterns. Basically, the whole US checking system is built with convenience rather than security in mind, since other institutions are able to initiate withdrawal transactions by knowing just the ABA number and account number. In practice, it works well enough for most people, but if you are paranoid about security, as you seem to be, you don't want to be using checks. The European system, which has largely eliminated checks in favor of payer-initiated push transactions, is safer by design.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d572b9345892ac7846a98e286c53a59", "text": "In addition to @mhoran_psprep answer, and inspired by @wayne's comment. If the bank won't let you block automatic transfers between accounts, drop the bank like a hot potato They've utterly failed basic account security principles, and shouldn't be trusted with anyone's money. It's not the bank's money, and you're the only one that can authorize any kind of transfer out. I limit possible losses through debit and credit cards very simply. I keep only a small amount on each (~$500), and manually transfer more on an as needed basis. Because there is no automatic transfers to these cards, I can't lose everything in the checking account, even temporarily.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3912d80e83895765659c65b88510353b", "text": "\"In the case of bank failures You are protected by FDIC insurance. At the time I wrote this, you are insured up to $250,000. In my lifetime, it has been as high as $1,000,000 and as low as $100,000. I attached a link, which is updated by FDIC. In the case of fraud It depends. If you read this story and are horrified (I was too), you know that the banking system is not as safe as the other answers imply: In February 2005, Joe Lopez, a businessman from Florida, filed a suit against Bank of America after unknown hackers stole $90,000 from his Bank of America account. The money had been transferred to Latvia. An investigation showed that Mr. Lopez’s computer was infected with a malicious program, Backdoor.Coreflood, which records every keystroke and sends this information to malicious users via the Internet. This is how the hackers got hold of Joe Lopez’s user name and password, since Mr. Lopez often used the Internet to manage his Bank of America account. However the court did not rule in favor of the plaintiff, saying that Mr. Lopez had neglected to take basic precautions when managing his bank account on the Internet: a signature for the malicious code that was found on his system had been added to nearly all antivirus product databases back in 2003. Ouch. But let's think about the story for a second - he had his money stolen because of online banking and he didn't have the latest antivirus/antimalware software. How safe is banking if you don't do online banking? In the case of this story, it would have prevented keyloggers, but you're still susceptible to someone stealing your card or account information. So: In the bank's defense, how does a bank not know that someone didn't wire money to a friend (which is a loss for good), then get some of that money back from his friend while also getting money back from the bank, which had to face the loss. Yes, it sucks, but it's not total madness. As for disputing charges, from personal experience it also depends. I don't use cards whatsoever, so I've never had to worry, but both of my parents have experienced banking fraud where a fake charge on their card was not reversed. Neither of my parents are rich and can't afford lawyers, so crying \"\"lawsuit\"\" is not an option for everyone. How often does this occur? I suspect it's rare that banks don't reverse the charges in fraudulent cases, though you will still lose time for filing and possibly filling out paperwork. The way to prevent this: As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, there is no absolutely safe place to keep your money. Even if you bought metals and buried them in the ground, a drifter with a metal detector might run across it one day. You can take steps to protect yourself, but there is no absolute guarantee that these will work out. Account Closures I added this today because I saw this question and have only seen/heard about this three times. Provided that you get the cashier's check back safely, you should be okay - but why was this person's account closed and look at how much funds he had! From his question: In the two years I banked with BoA I never had an overdraft or any negative marks on my account so the only thing that would stick out was a check that I deposited for $26k that my mom left me after she passed. Naturally, people aren't going to like some of my answers, especially this, but imagine you're in an immediate need for cash, and you experience this issue. What can you do? Let's say that rent is on the line and it's $25 for every day that you're late. Other steps to protect yourself Some banks allow you to use a keyword or phrase. If you're careful with how you do this and are clever, it will reduce the risk that someone steals your money.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "20dc539a135756f98e0ce0645b6b30bc", "text": "The bond will rank below depositors, so it's riskier than the savings account. The savings account is very safe if you have less than £75,000 in accounts with the bank, as then it would be covered by the deposit guarantee Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Also note that bonds tend to have a fixed maturity whereas savings accounts usually let you get your money out at any time, perhaps with some notice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "834161fd81c5a093c0ceb941342f316b", "text": "\"Current is another word for Checking, as it is called in the US. Savings account is an interest-bearing account with certain limitations. For example, in the US you cannot withdraw money from it more than 6 times a month. Here is the explanation why. Current account is a \"\"general-use\"\" account on which you can write checks, use ATM/Debit cards and have unlimited transactions. It can also have negative balance (if your bank agrees to let you overdraft, they usually charge huge fees for that though). Checking accounts can have interest as well, but they usually don't, and if they do - it's much lower than the savings account interest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6a8bc7193252f2ccfec889fe8110dcb", "text": "No, most check deposits are processed that way. Banks transmit the pictures of the checks between themselves, and allow business customers to deposit scans for quite some time now. I see no reason for you to be concerned of a check being in a dusty drawer, it's been deposited, cannot be deposited again. If you're concerned of forgery - well, nothing new there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df4f61b877d8a4b2a47ea5f22cfe2168", "text": "\"Let's divide all bank accounts into savings and checking. The main difference is that checking is easy to get money from; savings is hard to get money from. Because of this, the federal Reserve requires that banks keep more money on hand to cover transactions in checking accounts. Here is a related question from a banking customer regarding a recent notice on their bank statement: Deposit Reclassification. It seems that the bank was moving the customer's money between hidden sub accounts to make it look like the checking account was really a savings account and thus \"\"reduce the amount of funds we are required to keep on deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank.\"\" If they didn't have to transfer the money many times the bank could keep less cash on hand. But once they did 5 hidden transactions the rest of the money in the hidden savings account would be moved by the bank. The 6 transaction limit is done to not allow you to treat savings like checking. Here is a relevant quote from the Federal Reserve Savings Deposits Savings deposits generally have no specified maturity period. They may be interest-bearing, with interest computed or paid daily, weekly, quarterly, or on any other basis. The two most significant features of savings deposits are the ‘‘reservation of right’’ requirement and the restrictions on the number of ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals that may be made per month (or per statement cycle of at least four weeks) from the account. In order to classify an account as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the institution must in its account agreement with the customer reserve the right at any time to require seven days’ advance written notice of an intended withdrawal. In practice, this right is never exercised, but the institution must nevertheless reserve that right in the account agreement. In addition, for an account to be classified as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the depositor may make no more than six ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals per month from the account. ‘‘Convenient’’ transfers and withdrawals, for purposes of this limit, include preauthorized, automatic transfers (including but not limited to transfers from the savings deposit for overdraft protection or for direct bill payments) and transfers and withdrawals initiated by telephone, facsimile, or computer, and transfers made by check, debit card, or other similar order made by the depositor and payable to third parties. Other, less-convenient types of transfers, such as withdrawals or transfers made in person at the bank, by mail, or by using an ATM, do not count toward the six-per-month limit and do not affect the account’s status as a savings account. Also, a withdrawal request initiated by telephone does not count toward the transfer limit when the withdrawal is disbursed via check mailed to the depositor. Examiners should be particularly wary of a bank’s practices for handling telephone transfers. As noted, an unlimited number of telephone-initiated withdrawals are allowed so long as a check for the withdrawn funds is mailed to the depositor. Otherwise, the limit is six telephone transfers per month. The limit applies to telephonic transfers to move savings deposit funds to another type of deposit account and to make payments to third parties.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b86926fb12df4ed68a5d3ab136240c05", "text": "If your checking account has a card associated with it, then keeping funds in savings reduces the risk that some kind of fraud will wipe you out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f887f060715767fd16691d606e5b6b7", "text": "how safe is my money As safe as it can get. Most Banks would be registered under FDIC. See the list here if a specific bank is covered or not. Bank of America is covered. How does this work, and is there something I need to do so I am covered by it? Should I be getting a certificate or something?Is BOA under the scope of this Deposit insurance? It only covers if the bank fails, i.e. goes bankrupt. The FDIC steps in and either oversees a merger of the failed bank with another bank, or in the worst case, pays the depositors upto $250,000. Does it cover me if someone steals my money? The FDIC does not cover if someone steals your money. if someone hacks my computer and transfers all my money? This will be determined on a case to case basis. If the loss of money is because of your negligence, i.e. you gave your password etc to someone else or did not take enough precautions to safegaurd ... including allowing someone to hack you computer ... in such cases it is a crime and you would need to file police complaint and the bank will on best effort basis try and reverse the transfer. If this was due to the bank's error; i.e. Bank did not ensure right controls/security was in place resulting in loss of your money, the bank is liable and will pay you back. So cases like someone forged your signature on a check etc. are the bank's responsibility.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f5767d1419297a9b538d367bd4a0332", "text": "I have a visa with Scotiabank and I purposefully keep a negative balance at times. The guy at the bank said it was a great idea. I have never received a cheque, nor do I want one. The reason is that it allows me to make quick purchases without having to worry about paying back and due dates. Only with large purchases do I allow myself to do that. I still check in with my account every once in a while just to make sure everything is all right. It allows for good money management and piece of mind. I have been doing it for a couple of years and have not been penalized at all. (Wouldn't really make sense to do so though.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2b70c44dd629cead7a59e2061c419f1", "text": "\"Technically, no. There is very little security in the US for bank drafts. With your bank account routing number it is very easy for people to draw funds without your authorization. Another thing people can do is buy stuff online with \"\"demand drafts\"\". Essentially it works like a credit card number where the create an electronic version of a check to purchase things. There is generally no password, PIN or signature requirement. That said, it is printed on every check you write so keeping it private isn't really practical. I'd make sure you trust anyone you give it to and watch your account statements closely. An important thing to know is that a routing number isn't a one-way deal. If you give out the number for someone to wire you money, they can just as easily draft on the account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ea5eaff70dfacae1fcb7152ff7cd61d", "text": "You are correct that it is relatively easy for someone to create fake checks and steal money. They even made a movie about it, and not much has changed since that movie takes place. However, most checking accounts do indeed have $0 liability for this type of check fraud, referred to as check forgery. If someone does cash a check against your account that you did not write, you will eventually get your money back. Essentially, the thief stole from the bank (or the merchant that accepted the check), not from you. In the U.S., check forgery is generally covered by state law. According to a Q&A on the CFPB website, if you report to the bank that a check that cleared your account was forged in some way, and you do this within a reporting window defined by state law, the bank is supposed to return your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bc0051425fa5f3365e51dec08592589", "text": "I agree with you that smartphone deposits make you more vulnerable to a variety of issues. Checks are completely insecure, since anyone with your routing/account number can create a check, and individuals are less likely to shred or otherwise secure the check properly. Ways to control this risk are:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "048a197e1f19c8e5bbb16b6dc3812080", "text": "I never understood why anyone would overdraft their checking account, until a conversation with a bank teller recently who told me that most young folks these days don't bother to balance their checkbooks anymore or to even bother with a checkbook at all -- they just check their available balance to see how much is in their checking account (totally ignoring any checks or other charges that may have been made against their account but have not yet been debited). It's hard to believe that young people can be that stupid, but apparently some are.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a94776ff15107b4078eabd2f71906a41", "text": "\"Welcome to the 21st century, the New Order. Forget all that legal mumbo jumbo you may have read back in law school in the 1960s about commercial code. Its all gone now. Now we have Check 21 and the Patriot Act !!! Basically what this means is that because some Arab fanatics burned down the World Trade Center, the US government and its allied civilian banking company henchmen now have total control and dictatorship over \"\"your\"\" money, which is no longer really money, but more like a \"\"credit\"\" to your account with THEM which they can do with what they want. Here are some of the many consequences of the two aforementioned acts: (1) You can no longer sue a bank for mishandling your money (2) All your banking transaction information is the joint property of the bank, its \"\"affiliates\"\" and the US Treasury (3) You can no longer conduct private monetary transactions with other people using a bank as your agent; you can only request that a bank execute an unsecured transaction on your behalf and the bank has total control over that transaction and the terms on which occurs; you have no say over these terms and you cannot sue a bank over any financial tort on you for any reason. (4) All banks are required to spy on you, report any \"\"suspicious\"\" actions on your part, develop and run special software to detect these \"\"suspicious actions\"\", and send their employees to government-run educational courses where they are taught to spy on customers, how to report suspicious customers and how to seize money and safe deposit boxes from customers when the government orders them to do so. (5) All banks are required to positively identify everyone who has a bank account or safe deposit box and report all their accounts to the government. (6) No transactions can be done anonymously. All parties to every banking transaction must be identified and recorded. So, from the above it should be clear to (if you are a lawyer) why no endorsement is present. That is because your check is not a negotiable instrument anymore, it is merely a request to the bank to transfer funds to the Treasury. The Treasury does not need to \"\"endorse\"\" anything. In fact, legally speaking, the Treasury could simply order your bank to empty your account into theirs, and they actually do this all the time to people they are \"\"investigating\"\" for supposed crimes. You don't need to endorse checks you receive either because, as I said above, the check is no longer a negotiable instrument. Banks still have people do it, but it is just a pro forma habit from the old days. Since you can't sue the bank, the endorsement is pretty meaningless because it cannot be challenged in court anyway. You could probably just write \"\"X\"\" there and they would deposit it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8763fc2c07ef25982bf35c895dd7557", "text": "\"There are at least a couple problems: Your friend may not manage money well and so may not have enough money in the account. Check bounces. They get charged a fee. You get charged a fee. You have to chase after the friend to get the fee paid. The friend was cheap about the regular fees and doesn't want to pay this much higher fee. Your \"\"friend\"\" may really be a crook. The check is no good. Perhaps it's written under a false identity such that you are attempting to cash a stolen/forged check. You cash it. They take the money and disappear. You get charged with participating in the crime, go to jail, and now have a criminal record (worst case). My quick thought is that if you don't know the person well enough to know the home address, you don't know the person well enough to cash checks. In general, I would view this the same as a loan. When loaning to a friend, you should never loan more than you are willing to lose. Note that an actual loan would be safer. If you loan $50 to a friend, at worst you're out $50. If you deposit a fraudulent check, you did something illegal. You will have to be convincing when you tell your story to the police. If they don't believe you, they could charge you. A couple bad breaks and you could go to jail.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fff9f534af255ae2a8658a1a07f2e894", "text": "You can limit the value of your checking account tied to paypal by not putting money in that account. In fact, you should always limit the balance in your checking account to what you plan to spend, plus a reasonable buffer. Anything you have above and being that should be in separate accounts (both to minimize exposure as well as maximize your interest earned).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3c666ea6cb3a77befcdf56abf9e1537c", "text": "> This after paying thousands a month for decades. By my math, that's about (if not well over) half a million dollars they've spent on life insurance. Even using the minimums for what you said, that's 2k/month\\12months/year\\2decades\\*10years/decade=$480,000. Edit:formatting", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
706dbe6c30d36f8c4ad1932180fb3c77	Will getting a new credit card and closing another affect my credit?	[ { "docid": "dd9aa0e20ca04d30ead7fc398af8e1ab", "text": "\"Several events will always result in a reduction of your score, including: These will show up in the short term, but I don't think it's worth $40 per year in perpetuity to avoid this. These aren't serious \"\"black marks\"\" in the same category as missing payments, carrying too much debt, or foreclosures/evictions, etc. These effects are designed to signal issuers when someone acquires a large amount of credit in a very short period of time, which may indicate a greater risk. If your credit is good and you are using your other cards responsibly, closing the card (given the annual fee) would not cause me great concern if it were me. Since you are so much better of a risk than you likely were in college, you can also call Capital One, ask to speak with a supervisor, and ask them to drop the fee and increase your credit limit. They should be able to easily verify that you meet the requirements for other types of preferred cards they offer, and they should be willing to offer you improved terms rather than losing your business. It is very possible they simply haven't re-evaluated your risk since you initially applied. Also, remember that these types of effects determine only a portion of your overall score. Activity is also a major component. Rather than leaving an unused card open for history and debt-to-limit purposes only, I would also recommend having some minimum level of activity, such as an automatic bill payment, on each card you carry. The effect of using your cards over time will have a significant positive effect on your score. Best of luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81df40145417627c24bdc2cd2b333f13", "text": "I once called Amex to cancel a card with an annual fee. Instead, they were able to give me a different card with no fee. They were happy to do it. Of course, Amex has fantastic customer service, while Capital One is not known for it. But, its worth a five minute call, and you will retain your good score.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "973e93c944b422193f5153439065c64a", "text": "\"Besides your credit score, there are other smart reasons to have a second line of credit. (Your credit score doesn't affect you the majority of your life, but when it does whoooooo boy does it.) Should the first bank you have credit with create or find a clerical error, a second line of credit can provide a cushion while you sort it out with the first Should physically damage a card, or have it stolen, having a second backup at home will be helpful as you wait for a replacement. Getting a second line of credit with a different institution than your first allows you the flexibility to cancel one and move your business should the deal become unfavorable to you. Multiple lines of credit in of itself is a plus to your credit score (albeit a small one) You can organize your finances. One card handles the recurring payments in your life, the second incidentals. The expected activity type might make it easier to detect fraud. When you get your second line of credit, get it from a different institution than where you have any other business now. (A credit union if you can, or a small local bank). Make sure there is no annual fee, and if there is a reward, be certain it is worth it. Cash back is my favorite because I can spend cash where I like, whereas \"\"points\"\" have to come out of product in their catalogs. Lower interest rate is best of all. Even though you always plan on paying it off every month like clockwork, you might one day run into an issue where you cannot. Lower interest rate becomes very important in that plannings scenario.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "765030ab89ad614b11797593a102d108", "text": "Cancelled cards don't fall off the system for a long time, up to ten years. Card terms change, with notice of course, but it can happen at any time. I had a card with a crazy perk, 5% back in Apple Gift cards. This was pre-iPod days, but it was great to get a new computer every two years for free. But it was short lived. Three years into it, the cards were changed, a no-perk card from the bank. That is now my oldest account, and it goes unused. Instead of holding cards like this, I wish I had flipped it to a different card years ago. Ideally, your mix of cards should provide value to you, and if they all do, then when one perk goes away, it's time to refresh that card. This is a snapshot from my report at CreditKarma. (Disclosure, I like these guys, I've met their PR folk. I have no business relationship with them) Elsewhere on the page it's noted that average card age is a 'medium impact' item. I am 50, but I use the strategy above to keep the cards working for me. My current score is 784, so this B on the report isn't hurting too much. The tens of thousands I've saved in mortgage interest by being a serial refinancer was worth the hit on account age, as was the credit card with a 10% rebate for 90 days, the 'newest account' you see in the snapshot. In the end, the score manipulation is a bit of a game. And some of it is counter-intuitive. Your score can take a minor hit for actions that would seem responsible, but your goal should be to have the right mix of cards, and the lowest interest (long term) loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "312d32a49042514a7405bb87a35c97c5", "text": "I disagree with the reply. Your both impressions are correct. - Do not close old credit cards because they keep your credit rating high (fico score) - Also low utilization that credit cards report to credit rating companies, improves your rating.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fa2fdb9afac53bf36b34740cd97dec0", "text": "\"The question asked in your last paragraph (what's the downside) is answered simply; if you take out a loan and close the cards, that's a ding on your score because your leverage ratio on this portion of your credit jumps to 100% or more, and because you'll be reducing the average age of your lines of credit (one line of credit a few days old versus five lines of credit several years old each). If you take out the loan and don't close the accounts, it's one more line of credit, increasing your total credit, lowering your leverage, but making institutions more reluctant to give you any more credit until they see what you'll do with what you have. In either case, assuming you can get the loan at less than the average rate of the cards (that's actually not a guarantee; a lot of lenders will want APRs in the 20s or 30s even for a title loan or other collateralized loan), then your cost of capital will also go down. That gives you more of a gap of discretionary income that you can better use to \"\"snowball\"\" all this debt as you are planning. Another thing to keep in mind is that the minimum payment changes as the balance does. The minimum payment covers monthly interest at least, and therefore varies based on your interest rate (usually variable) and your balance (which will hopefully be decreasing). A constant payment over the current minimum, much like a more traditional amortization, would be preferable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "487342b59ecd1739ead28cebd4f8eefb", "text": "Credit scores are designed to reflect your ability to make payments on time. As long as you're not closing your old credit card account, you will only see a minimal impact on your score. See estimated credit score breakdowns below:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffcd05e21d93a82f19cefb9df06b032f", "text": "\"I'd say close them if they have fees, if you're worried about fraud or if you're going to be tempted to use them. It may have an affect on your credit rating, but it shouldn't hurt you seriously. Having too many cards gives you the \"\"opportunity\"\" to overspend, which obviously isn't good.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95d09eb0abac324be064402b319b207c", "text": "I'm not sure if someone else answered already in the same manner I will. I can't guarantee for sure if it's the same in the U.S.A. (it might since major credit cards companies like Visa/MC/AMEX are American companies) but in Canada having/keeping unused CC is a disadvantage because of the following: Banks and financing companies look more at the total amount of credit available to you than at how much purchases you have on your cards. Ex: Let's say that you have the following: - Visa cc with $10,000 limit and $2000 worth of purchases (made more than 30 days ago) on it. - Mastercard cc with $10,000 limit as well and $1000 worth of purchases (less than 30 days old) - A major retail store cc with $2000 limit and $0 balance. Hypothetical situation: You want a bank loan to do some expensive house repairs and are looking for a lower interest rate than what your cc can offer. The bank will not care about the amount on the cards. They will add-up all the limits of your cc and treat your loan request as if ALL your cards were filled to their respective limit. So in this case: they will consider you as being right now in debt of $10K+$10K+$2K = $22,000 instead of only $3000 and they might: 1. refuse you the loan 2. grant it only if you transfer all purchases on a single card and cancel all the others. 3. Once the $3000 is transferred on one of the cards (and the others cancelled), they can require that you reduce the limit of that card. Hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e84ad1a155299c3cc4cad8018e600cf", "text": "\"I would not call this a \"\"good\"\" idea. But I wouldn't necessarily call it a bad idea either. Before you even consider it, you need to do a little bit of soul searching. If there is ANY chance that having multiple credit cards could entice you to spend more than you otherwise would, then this is definitely a bad idea. Avoiding temptation is the key to preventing regrettable actions (in all aspects of life). Psychoanalysis aside, let's take a mathematical approach to the question. I believe your conclusion is correct if you add some qualifiers to it: A few years from now, then your credit score will probably be higher than if you just had 1 credit card. Here are some other things to consider: And, saving the best for last: As for the hard inquiries, they should only have an effect on your credit score for 1 year (though they can be seen on your report for 2 years). Final thought: if you decide to do this (and I personally don't recommend it), I would keep the number of applications smaller (3-5 instead of 10-15). I also would only choose cards that have no annual fee. Try to choose 1 card that has 1-2% cash back and make that your regular card.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b770fe5e597b3e19d2a254d0222386c", "text": "Not for normal banking. You can open as many accounts as you want. I did this recently with some Amazon gift card churning for a Chase cash bonus. Staying a long time may have their credit department reach out and offer you a long time customer discount. But no one is saying you have to close one account to open another.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "faba22fcbb256cb99bfd83b3e93a137a", "text": "\"Sign up with credit karma. It will give you two scores for free and will show you credit cards you have a good chance in being approved for. Plus it will evaluate your score showing you the 6 items that effect your score and give you steps to improve them or tell you how long you have to wait until they roll off. Plus I would look at a credit union and see if they have any \"\"fresh start\"\" programs. You should be well on your way. the thing that is probably hurting your credit is your utilization. If you can just use 10% of your available credit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fa07862de504222737b3d46f2e2ed20", "text": "\"Unless you have a history of over-using credit (i.e. you've gotten yourself into debt trouble), then I think that the banker is giving you bad advice in telling you to get your own credit limit reduced. Having more credit available to you that is left unused will make your utilization ratio lower, which is generally better for your credit score, according to this article on CreditKarma.com. The \"\"sweet spot\"\" seems to be 1-20% utilization of your total credit. (But remember, this is only one factor in your credit score, and not even the biggest-- having a long history of on-time payments counts the most.) My own personal experience seems to bear this out. I have two major credit cards that I use. One card has a high credit limit (high for me anyway) and I use it for just about everything that I buy-- groceries, gas, durable goods, services, you name it. The other card has a limit that is about 1/3 of the first, and I use it for a few recurring bills and occasional purchases where they don't take the first card. I also have a couple of department store cards that I use rather infrequently (typically 1 purchase every 3 months or so). At the end of each month, when the respective statements post, each card has a balance that is 15% or less of the credit limit on that card. I pay off the entire balance on each card each month, and the cycle repeats. I have never been late on a payment, and my credit history for all of these cards goes back 10 years. My credit score is nearly as high as it can go. If having unused credit were a detriment, I would expect my score to be much lower. So, no, having \"\"too much credit available\"\" is not going to hurt you, unless you are not using it at all, or are tempted to abuse it (use too much). The key is to use common sense. Have a small number of cards, keep them active, spend within your means so you can pay off the balance in full after the statement posts, and never be late on your payments. That's all it takes to have good credit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6eeebb604046b2dd9274a55dbadbaf4f", "text": "Your credit score is definitely affected by the age of your credit accounts, so if you frequently close one card and open another new one, you're adversely affecting the overall average age of accounts. This is something to consider and whether it is worth what you're trying to achieve. Sometimes, if you're a good customer and are insistent enough, you can simply call your credit card company and use the threat of closing your account in favor of another card that offers something attractive to get your current bank to sweeten its incentives to keep your business. I know many people who've done this with real success, and they spare themselves the hassle of obtaining a new card and suffering the short term consequences on their credit report. This might be an avenue worth trying before you just close the account and move on. I hope this helps. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87fc1ee3130e6d1f7b2378deb7fb8c8c", "text": "Credit scoring has changed recently and the answer to this question will have slightly changed. While most points made here are true: But now (as of July 2017) it is possible having a large available credit balance can negatively effect your credit score directly: ... VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card rewards program points game could be affected as well. source", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ada9b365d608336a462040cce275f6ab", "text": "The old underwriting standards were 28% home debt to income ratio and 33% consumer debt to income ratio. Consumer debt is calculated based on minimum payments. Now, most models are revised upwards... I believe 33/38 is more common today. As long as you are current on the accounts, closing credit or store revolving accounts will have little or no bearing. Just leave them dormant... there is no positive result from closing accounts that have no balance. Having low or no balances has NO negative impact on your credit score. Low balances are NOT red flags to lenders. Period. Here's a quote from Fair Issac: It's just not true that you can have too much available credit. That by itself is never a negative with the score. Sometimes the things you do to get too much can be a problem, such as opening a bunch of new accounts, but for the most part, that's just kind of an old wives' tale. The major drivers of credit scoring are: To improve your prospects for getting a mortgage, you should be reducing your spending and focusing 60/40 on saving for a down payment and paying down that $15k credit card, respectively. Having cash for a down payment is critical to your buying power, as zero-down loans aren't widely available in 2011, and a large downpayment will allow you to eliminate or reduce the time you are paying PMI. PMI reduces your buying power, and is a big waste of money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8cef2e63b89d8f2d84e300bbf9a2199", "text": "\"Your total debt is equal to your total non-credit debt (student loans, car loans) + your total available credit. This is the truth of the \"\"low balance\"\" fear from lenders that you had heard about. Your credit utilization is across all of your cards. So if you have two cards, both with 15K limits and one is maxed out and one is empty, that is 50% utilization. If you have both cards with 7.5K balances, that is also 50% utilization. For the 8 cards that are paid off and still open, after you buy a house, I'd close any cards you aren't using. Not everyone will agree with this. If possible, I would close the 8 cards now and pay off the 15K balance before buying a house. If it's hard to pay it off now, it will be harder when you have a mortgage and home maintenance costs. If you want to buy the house before you pay off all of your credit card debt, I'd still close the 8 cards that are already paid off and pay down your last card to 4K (or less) to get under 25% utilization. The credit rating bureaus do not publish exactly how a different utilization rate of credit will affect your score, but it is known that lower utilization will improve your score. FICO calls this \"\"Proportion of credit lines used (proportion of balances to total credit limits on certain types of revolving accounts)\"\" Also, the longevity of your credit history is based on type of account (credit cards, car loans, etc.) so if you keep one credit card open, you still keep your long \"\"history\"\" with credit cards on your credit report. FICO calls this \"\"Time since accounts opened, by specific type of account\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d3acc1cf19a304593ce970cd74326e09	Do I repay Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) if I suddenly have income and assets	[ { "docid": "a721eb4ab0265595914c1140f7df4c50", "text": "\"There are two types of insurance, which causes some confusion. Social Security Disability Insurance (which you indicate you have) is insurance you can receive benefit from if you earn enough \"\"work credits\"\" (payroll taxes) prior to your disability onset. It is not a needs-based program. Supplemental Security Income is a need-based program which does not consider your work history. To qualify for this, your total assets need to be lower than some threshold and your family income also below some threshold. If you inherit a home, or money, I doubt this would jeopardize your SSDI qualification, since your qualification was based on a disabling condition and work history. If you inherit an income property, which you manage (i.e. you become a landlord), this may jeopardize your claim that you are unable to work. Even if you are not making an \"\"income\"\" as the landlord, but the work your are performing is deemed to have some \"\"value\"\" this too could jeopardize your claim. All of this can be very complicated, and there are some excellent references on the web including SSA website, and some other related websites. Finally, if you become able to work while on SSDI, your benefit may/will end depending on the level of work you are able to perform. But just because you are able to work again does not mean you need to repay past benefits received (assuming your condition has not been falsified). Your local social security office, or the social security main office both offer telephone support and can also answer questions regarding your concern. Here are a couple relevant links:\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a8d3723c9efcbb61d7eed84a2e6893c2", "text": "\"Having dealt with with Social Security, state agencies, and banks more than I'd care to, I would urge you to do the following: 1) Get a 100% clear answer on whether or not you are listed as \"\"joint\"\" or \"\"authorized user/signer\"\" for an account. This will probably require a call to the bank, but for less than an hour of you and your friend's time you will save yourself a whole lot of hassle. The difference is like this: if you worked at a business that added you as an authorized user for a credit or debit card, this would allow you to use the card to buy things. But that doesn't make the money in the bank yours! On the other hand if you are listed as \"\"joint\"\", this regards ownership, and it could become tricky to establish whether its your money or not to any governmental satisfaction. 2) You are completely correct in being honest with the agency, but that's not enough - if you don't know what the facts are, you can't really be honest with them. If the form is unclear it's ok to ask, \"\"on having a bank account, does being listed as an authorized user on someone else's account count if it isn't my money or bank account?\"\" But if you are listed as holding the account jointly, that changes the question to: \"\"I am listed as joint on someone else's checking account, but it isn't my money - how is that considered?\"\" To Social Security it might mean generating an extra form, or it might mean you need to have the status on the account changed, or they might not care. But if you don't get the facts first, they won't give you the right answers or help you need. And from personal experience, it's a heck of a lot easier to get a straight and clear answer from a bank than it is from a federal government agency. Have the facts with you when you contact them and you'll be ok - but trust me, you don't want them guessing!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "435f095c00fd0b097b98c27a0a57a9df", "text": "In your situation, it sounds like the only added benefit would be insurance continuance. For employees who can't access short-term disability it is a critical protection against losing their job. I just want to emphasize that given that you are in a pretty decent employment situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1d9c8e56415545f16b62704b323ec6c", "text": "You don't decide what gets to be owed, the government does. In your example, they wouldn't owe 1000, they would determine that they only have enough for 750. So guess what, you're now owed only 750. It's called cutting benefits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f167e9195270c46a1c2ae9acdf9247e6", "text": "I would delay purchase of a condo or apartment until you have at a minimum, 6 months of living expenses including mortgage set aside in other investments that could be liquidated. If you lost your source of income though disability or layoff or an unexpected termination of a grant, you need to have that cushion or a significant other whose salary can sustain payments. You could lose a lot if you either cannot make the payments and/or the value to the apartment dips greatly. Many folks in the recent housing bubble and Great Recession learned this the hard way. Many lost their entire investment by not being able to make payments AND seeing their house lose 1/3 of its value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "717809374b9154f0d565bf807f527355", "text": "The social security administration has a webpage to get your Social Security estimate. It replaces the yearly estimate they used to mail everybody. It shows the amount you paid for social security and medicare and what they estimate you will receive at your retirement age. They also discuss disability benefits. Everybody should do this every year. Though it does take a few months to get the previous years numbers updated into the system. If you notice a problem with the money they think you paid into the system in a particular year, you can send them an old W-2 and get the numbers corrected.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87e348bf561974202929b6813d10837d", "text": "Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and I have not 100% researched the law. Take any advise from an online forum with a grain of salt. Please consult an attorney, tax specialist, or the IRS directly for any concrete answers. AFAIK there isn't anything that would prevent you from starting a business. Simply owing back taxes shouldn't make a difference on how you make money, whether that is working for yourself or someone else. All the IRS is concerned about at this point is that you still owe them. When going through the process of forming an LLC a couple of years back, I don't recall any personal tax information being brought up except when we were discussing possible loan options. Regarding loan options, one important issue you may come into is if the IRS has filed a lien against you: A federal tax lien is the government’s legal claim against your property when you neglect or fail to pay a tax debt. The lien protects the government’s interest in all your property, including real estate, personal property and financial assets. A lien will exist on your credit report for 7 years after it is released: The IRS releases your lien within 30 days after you have paid your tax debt. With a lien, it will be very difficult to get a loan or other financing for your small business. If this ends up being the case, you can try to get a discharge or subordination on specific property that would allow lenders a claim on your property ahead of the IRS. Otherwise, you may find yourself relying solely on what money you currently have. A big point is the IRS's threshold on filing a lien is $10,000: The Fresh Start Initiative increased the IRS Notice of Federal Tax Lien filing threshold from $5,000 to $10,000; however, Notices of Federal Tax Liens may still be filed on amounts less than $10,000 when circumstances warrant. Since you currently owe ~$8,000 over the past 3 years, it is possible that adding another year in back taxes will cause the IRS to file a lien if they have not yet already done so. So it may be something to keep an eye on if you do plan on taking out a loan for your business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "952ca1d90bac05577db80d5258d82c06", "text": "\"Never forget that student lenders and their collection agencies are dangerous and clever predators, and you, the student borrower, are their legal prey. They look at you and think, \"\"food.\"\" My friend said she never pays her student loans and nothing has happened. She's wrong. Something has happened. She just doesn't know about it yet. Each unpaid bill, with penalties, has been added to the balance of her loan. Now she owes that money also. And she owes interest on it. That balance is probably building up very fast indeed. She's playing right into the hands of her student lender. They are smiling about this. When the balance gets large enough to make it worthwhile, her student lender will retain an aggressive collection agency to recover the entire balance. The agency will come after her in court, and they are likely to win. If your friend lives in the US, she'll discover that she can't declare bankruptcy to escape this. She has the bankruptcy \"\"reform\"\" act of 2006, passed during the Bush 43 regime, to thank for this. A court judgement against her will make it harder for her to find a job and even a spouse. I'm not saying this is right or just. I believe it is wrong and unjust to make university graduates into debt slaves. But it is true. As for being paid under the table, I hope your friend intends on dying rather than retiring when she no longer can work due to age. If she's paid under the table she will not be eligible for social security payments. You need sixteen calendar quarters of social security credit to be eligible for payments. I know somebody like this. It's a hell of a way to live, especially on weekends when the local church feeding programs don't operate. Paying people under the table ought to be a felony for the business owner.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b877f4c1933e4e70b58b8050cf5d160", "text": "You already received a tax deduction, more or less, as you didn't pay tax on this income. Beyond that, no; the money is lost if you don't spend it. See this explanation for example, among many others; it's specific to FSA, but they work generally the same way. To go into a bit more detail, read the IRS publication on the subject; basically, what's happening here is that you're receiving a fringe benefit, rather than salary. So yes, you agreed to voluntarily reduce your salary by $255 or whatever per month in exchange for funds in this account. As such, they're nontaxable, which both your employer and you find helpful; but the downside is it's not really your money - it's a fringe benefit. Nice that it's tax free, and dissimilar to a medical or dependent care FSA, it doesn't have an expiration date; but it does go away when you leave your employer, and you don't get it back. It's money you never had.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6dc7770bf9cfddeb08a32ff783991cc", "text": "Insurance you purchase is paid to you. However, even if the home is destroyed, you still owe all the money to the bank, and you no longer have the house as part of the land's value to guarantee the loan. So depending on how much the land is still worth versus how much you owe -- and exactly what the terms of the loan are -- you may need to use some or all of that money to repay enough of the loan to bring it back within the bank's policies. Read the terms of the loan -- consider asking a lawyer to clarify it for you if necessary; having a lawyer review that kind of major contract is always wise anyway. –", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f2ff5ed3f7d9d6c17bd7c358111fd09", "text": "The amount of the income taxes you will owe depends upon how much income you have, after valid business expenses, also it will depend upon your filing status as well as the ownership form of your business and what state you live in. That said, you will need to be sure to make the Federal 1040ES quarterly prepayments of your tax on time or there will be penalties. You also must remember that you will be needing to file a schedule SE with your 1040. That is for the social security taxes you owe, which is in addition to your income taxes. With an employer/employee situation, the FICA withhoding you have seen on your paycheck are matched by the same payment by your employer. Now that you are self-employed you are responcible for your share and the employer share as well; in this situation it is known as self-employment tax. the amount of it will be the same as your share of FICA and half of the employer's share of FICA taxes. If you are married and your wife also is working self-employed, then she will have to files herown schedule SE along with yours. meaning that you will pay based on your business income and she will pay baed on hers. your 1040Es quarterly prepayment must cover your income tax and your combined (yours and hers) Self Employment taxes. Many people will debate on the final results of the results of schedule SE vrs an employee's and an employer's payments combined. If one were to provides a ball park percentage that would likely apply to you final total addition to your tax libility as a result of needing schedule SE would tend to fluctuate depending upon your total tax situation; many would debate it. It has been this way since, I first studied and use this schedule decades ago. For this reason it is best for you to review these PDF documents, Form 1040 Schedule SE Instructions and Form 1040 Schedule SE. As for your state income taxes, it will depend on the laws of the state you are based in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2da701703d4434e4476dda2c8679d3f5", "text": "Most likely, yes. AD&D is insurance against a specific type of peril. Life insurance is, too, but there are fewer exceptions to payout. I'd imagine that you'd have to die by accident, or be dismembered but not die, for it to pay out. The exceptions in the policy are what you need to be concerned about. If loss of you (and your income) would be of financial hardship to your wife and your goals for your family, then you should consider life insurance. (If you do, consider having your wife buy the policy on you, and make sure it's clear that her funds were paying for it. It may be possible to avoid having the payout go into your estate that way.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "982b04c5e536ff4051aaacf79f34c438", "text": "Some lenders will work with you if you contact them early and openly discuss your situation. They are not required to do so. The larger and more corporate the lender, the less likely you'll find one that will work with you. My experience is that your success in working out repayment plan for missed payments depends on the duration of your reduced income. If this is a period of unemployment and you will be able to pay again in a number of months, you may be able to work out a plan on some debts. If you're permanently unable to pay in full, or the duration is too long, you may have to file bankruptcy to save your domicile and transportation. The ethics of this go beyond this forum, as do the specifics of when it is advisable to file bankruptcy. Research your area, find debt counselling. They can really help with specifics. Speak with your lenders, they may be able to refer you to local non-profit services. Be sure that you find one of those, not one of the predatory lenders posing as credit counselling services. There's even some that take the money you can afford to pay, divide it up over your creditors, allowing you to keep accruing late/partial payment fees, and charge you a fee on top of it. To me this is fraudulent and should be cause for criminal charges. The key is open communication with your lenders with disclosure to the level that they need to know. If you're disabled, long term, they need to know that. They do not need to know the specific symptoms or causes or discomforts. They need to know whether the Social Security Administration has declared you disabled and are paying you a disability check. (If this is the case, you probably have a case worker who can find you resources to help negotiate with your creditors).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07b529c7d2395c26971e103a1982d34f", "text": "While I agree with keshlam@ that the gym had no reason (or right) to ask for your SSN, giving false SSN to obtain credit or services (including gym membership) may be considered a crime. While courts disagree on whether you can be charged with identity theft in this scenario, you may very well be charged with fraud, and if State lines are crossed (which in case of store cards is likely the case) - it would be a Federal felony charge. Other than criminal persecution, obviously not paying your debt will affect your credit report. Since you provided false identity information, the negative report may not be matched to you right away, but it may eventually. In the case the lender discovers later that you materially misrepresented information on your mortgage application - they may call on your loan and either demand repayment in full at once or foreclose on you. Also, material misrepresentation of facts on loan application is also a criminal fraud. Again, if State lines are crossed (which in most cases, with mortgages they are), it becomes a Federal wire fraud case. On mortgage application you're required to disclose your debts, and that includes lines of credits (store cards and credit cards are the same thing) and unpaid debts (like your gym membership, if its in collection).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27ad062be6239cd491e4f3ad3e523df9", "text": "Yes. According to the IRS website, see #2: Whether a need is immediate and heavy depends on the facts and circumstances. Certain expenses are deemed to be immediate and heavy, including: (1) certain medical expenses; (2) costs relating to the purchase of a principal residence; (3) tuition and related educational fees and expenses; (4) payments necessary to prevent eviction from, or foreclosure on, a principal residence; (5) burial or funeral expenses; and (6) certain expenses for the repair of damage to the employee's principal residence. Expenses for the purchase of a boat or television would generally not qualify for a hardship distribution. A financial need may be immediate and heavy even if it was reasonably foreseeable or voluntarily incurred by the employee. (Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii))", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0a4893b71dec99934e4e67dee7a5b8c", "text": "I walked away from a house last year and don't regret it a single bit. I owed $545,000 and the bank sold it a month after moving out for $328,900. So technically I guess I can be on the hook to someone for the missing $216,100 for many years to come. Oh well. They can come after me if they want and I'll declare bankruptcy then.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
779defcf40a9af818936dff6fa8c2239	On claiming mileage and home office deductions	[ { "docid": "109c4d456f41fd860526feb85481d9ae", "text": "\"Can she claim deductions for her driving to and from work? Considering most people use their cars mostly to commute to/from work, there must be limits to what you can consider \"\"claimable\"\" and what you can't, otherwise everyone would claim back 80% of their mileage. No, she can't. But if she's driving from one work site to another, that's deductible whether or not either of the work sites is her home office. Can she claim deductions for her home office? There's a specific set of IRS tests you have to meet. If she meets them, she can. If you're self-employed, reasonably need an office, and have a place in your house dedicated to that purpose, you will likely meet all the tests. Can I claim deductions for my home office, even though I have an official work place that is not in my home? It's very hard to do so. The use of your home office has to benefit your employer, not just you. Can we claim deductions for our home internet service? If the business or home office uses them, they should be a deductible home office expense in some percentage. Usually for generic utilities that benefit the whole house, you deduct at the same percentage as the home office is of the entire house. But you can use other fractions if more appropriate. For example, if you have lots of computers in the home office, you can deduct more of the electricity if you can justify the ratio you use. Run through the rules at the IRS web page.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "dddc066c97185591206de8eeb5c95863", "text": "\"I have done several days of additional research on this and found out that it appears I can deduct the cost of the books against a single year's royalty income by claiming a Section 179 deduction. The steps are as follows: (1) Write the maximum amount of property you can claim under section 179 on line 1 of Form 4562. (2) Add up the total cost of section 179 property you began using during the tax year, including books, and record the amount on line 2. (3) Write the limit of your deductions on line 3. (4) Subtract the amount on line 2 from the amount on line 3 and record it on line 4. If line 3 is larger than line 2, simply write \"\"0\"\" on line 4, then subtract the amount on line 4 from the amount on line 1 and record on line 5. Step 5 (5) Describe the property and books on line 6 and record the cost of each in section b. Write the amount of the expense you are claiming for each item in section c of line 6. You can claim the entire cost of the books. (6) Add the amount in line 6 c to any amounts on line 7 and write the total on line 8. Write either the amount on line 8 or the amount on 5 on line 9, depending on which is smaller. (7) Write the amount of your Schedule C income on line 11, unless it is greater than $500,000. On line 12, write the amount of your deduction, which is the total of line 9 plus any carry-over you may have had from the previous year. (8) Record the amount of your deduction for section 179 books and property on line 13 of your Schedule C, not line 22. Include form 4562 when you hand in your tax return. source: \"\"How to Deduct Books for Self-Employed\"\" by Emily Weller\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6931b28ed497d53fd8dcf1995532c920", "text": "\"Also within Germany the tax offices usually determine which tax office is responsible for you by asking where you were more than 180 days of the year (if e.g. you have a second flat where you work). That's a default value, though: in my experience you can ask to be handled by another tax office. E.g. I hand my tax declaration to my \"\"home\"\" tax office (where also my freelancing adress is), even though my day-job is 300 km away. So if you work mostly from Poland and just visit the German customer a few times, you are fine anyways. Difficulties start if you move to Germany to do the work at your customer's place. I'm going to assume that this is the situation as otherwise I don't think the question would have come up. Close by the link you provided is a kind of FAQ on this EU regulation About the question of permanent vs. temporary they say: The temporary nature of the service is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Here's my German-Italian experience with this. Background: I had a work contract plus contracts for services and I moved for a while to Italy. Taxes and social insurance on the Italian contracts had to be paid to Italy. Including tax on the contract for services. Due to the German-Italian tax treaty, there is no double taxation. Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. By the way: The temporary time frame for Italy seemed to be 3 months, then I had to provide an Italian residence etc. and was registered in the Italian health care etc. system. Due to the German-Italian tax treaty, there is no double taxation. Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. Besides that, the German tax office nevertheless decided that my \"\"primary center of life\"\" stayed in Germany. So everything but the stuff related to the Italian contracts (which would probably have counted as normal work contracts in Germany, though they is no exact equivalent to those contract types) was handled by the German tax office. I think this is the relevant part for your question (or: argumentation with the German tax office) of temporary vs. permanent residence. Here are some points they asked: There is one point you absolutely need to know about the German social insurance law: Scheinselbständigkeit (pretended self-employment). Scheinselbständigkeit means contracts that claim to be service contracts with a self-employed provider who is doing the work in a way that is typical for employees. This law closes a loophole so employer + employee cannot avoid paying income tax and social insurance fees (pension contributions and unemployment insurance on both sides - health insurance would have to be paid in full by the self-employed instead of partially by the employer. Employer also avoids accident insurance, and several regulations from labour law are avoided as well). Legally, this is a form of black labour which means that the employer commits a criminal offense and is liable basically for all those fees. There is a list of criteria that count towards Scheinselbständigkeit. Particularly relevant for you could be\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "553ba551de833464c003df753f98f022", "text": "Not sure about the UK, but if it were in the US you need to realize the expenses can be claimed as much as the income. After having a mild heart attack when I did my business taxes the first time many years ago, a Small Business Administration adviser pointed it out. You are running the site from a computer? Deductible on an amortization schedule. Do you work from home? Electricity can be deducted. Do you drive at all? Did you pay yourself a wage? Any paperwork, fax communications, bank fees that you had to endure as work expenses? I am not an accountant, but chances are you legally lost quite a bit more than you made in a new web venture. Discuss it with an accountant for the details and more importantly the laws in your country. I could be off my rocker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d6d46e206cf7311f37569578369175a", "text": "Be prepared to drive another 500 km to prove your claim. If you file your claims, normally you should claim interest at the bank rate on savings bank accounts. However, in most such situations, the rate is specified in the law. If not, your claim will not be entertained in a normal way. You may to file a suit for recovery of interest. Keep us posted on your progress.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d42f309a482e9853bffb38d3a8d21e7c", "text": "Be ruthlessly meticulous about the IRS regulations for deducting a home office. If it's allowed, it's allowed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b3eb961fe4796f80757fdd694888379", "text": "IRS Publication 463 is a great resource to help you understand what you can and can't deduct. It's not a yes/no question, it depends on the exact company use, other use, and contemporaneous record keeping.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "067252b5ff9ca4e62bf6ff506f4bd7cb", "text": "The general rule is: Generally, in order to claim a business deduction for your home, you must use part of your home exclusively and regularly: Exclusively seems to be the toughest standard and I do not know exactly how strict the IRS's interpretation is. Working in your living room where you regularly watch TV and have people over on the weekends would seem to fail that test. A separate room with your computer in it would pass it. If it was your only computer and you regularly played online games with it, that would seem to be a grey area. The IRA booklet covering this area is here http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p587.pdf I know people that have rented rooms in other places or made use of rental offices for this purpose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af94bde04c5e56fce68e17efd75ae0cc", "text": "The short answer is yes you probably can take the deduction for a home office because the space is used exclusively and you are working there for the convenience of your employer if you don't have a desk at your employers office. The long answer is that it may not be worth it to take the home office deduction as an employee. You're deduction is subject to a 2% AGI floor. You can only deduct a percentage of your rent or the depreciation on your home. A quick and dirty example if you make $75k/year, rent a 1200 sqft 2 bedroom apartment for $1000/month and use one bedroom (120 sqft) regularly and exclusively for your employer. You can deduct 10% (120sqft/1200sqft) of the $12000 ($100012 months (assumes your situation didn't change)) in rent or $1200. However because you are an employee you are subject to the 2% AGI floor so you can deduct $1200-$1500 (75000.02 (salary * 2% floor)) = -300 so in order to deduct the first dollar you need an additional $300 worth of deductible expenses. Depending on your situation it may or may not be worth it to take the home office deduction even if you qualify for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f8b66c5cb69b50b06e59d8f0cf88697", "text": "Being a professional auditor and accountant, deduction against expenses are claimed in the year in which expenses has been incurred. It has no relationship with when it is paid. For example, we may buy on credit does not mean that they will be allowed in the period in which it is paid. This is against the fundamental accounting principles.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb60d460053ce5c63ebde8691c96b90a", "text": "Food is almost never a valid expense. Reason for it is simple - if you were not conducting business you would have to eat too. Ad 1. I don't see why travel in that case would not be a valid expense, as the only reason for you to travel there is for business reasons. Ad 2. Unlikely as there is a duality of purpose. So while part of it may be business, you are also getting personal benefit from the visit (coffee/cakes etc) so that generally is a no. Ad 3. No, while you can claim for entertainment of employees (to sensible extends), that doesn't work when entertaining clients. Ad 4. If any part of the trip is for leisure then you cannot claim it as business expense, sorry! If there is any duality of use then it's not a business expense. And food, as always, is a no go.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47fbaf740dacac037b1f7a8f5dfa294b", "text": "This answer is assuming you're in the US, which apparently you're not. I doubt that the rules in the EU are significantly different, but I don't know for sure. In case of an IRS control, is it ok to say that I regularly connect remotely to work from home although in the work contract it says I must work at client's office? No. Are there any other ways I can prove that this deduction is valid? No. You can't prove something is valid when its not. You can only deduct home office expense if it is used exclusively for your business, and your bedroom obviously is not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f395c55d7f9fd1f519a973966956ddbe", "text": "The relevant IRS publication is pub 463. Note that there are various conditions and exceptions, but it all starts with business necessity. Is it necessary for you to work from the UK? If you're working from the UK because you wanted to take a vacation, but still have to work, and would do the same work without being in the UK - then you cannot deduct travel expenses. It sounds to me like this is the case here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9a780decda5c8e8bb9f5fa69add811c", "text": "\"Even though you will meet the physical presence test, you cannot claim the FEIE because your tax home will remain the US. From the IRS: Your tax home is the general area of your main place of business, employment, or post of duty, regardless of where you maintain your family home. Your tax home is the place where you are permanently or indefinitely engaged to work as an employee or self-employed individual. Having a \"\"tax home\"\" in a given location does not necessarily mean that the given location is your residence or domicile for tax purposes. ... You are not considered to have a tax home in a foreign country for any period in which your abode is in the United States. However, your abode is not necessarily in the United States while you are temporarily in the United States. Your abode is also not necessarily in the United States merely because you maintain a dwelling in the United States, whether or not your spouse or dependents use the dwelling. ... The location of your tax home often depends on whether your assignment is temporary or indefinite. If you are temporarily absent from your tax home in the United States on business, you may be able to deduct your away from home expenses (for travel, meals, and lodging) but you would not qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion. If your new work assignment is for an indefinite period, your new place of employment becomes your tax home, and you would not be able to deduct any of the related expenses that you have in the general area of this new work assignment. If your new tax home is in a foreign country and you meet the other requirements, your earnings may qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion. If you expect your employment away from home in a single location to last, and it does last, for 1 year or less, it is temporary unless facts and circumstances indicate otherwise. If you expect it to last for more than 1 year, it is indefinite. If you expect your employment to last for 1 year or less, but at some later date you expect it to last longer than 1 year, it is temporary (in the absence of facts and circumstances indicating otherwise) until your expectation changes. For guidance on how to determine your tax home refer to Revenue Ruling 93-86. Your main place of business is in the US and this will not change, because your business isn't relocating. If you are intending to work remotely while you are abroad, you should get educated on the relevant laws on where you are going. Most countries don't take kindly to unauthorized work being performed by foreign visitors. And yes, even though you aren't generating income or involving anyone in their country, the authorities still well may disapprove of your working. My answer to a very similar question on Expatriates.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a57851d680f06d0d027cbc370f7c762e", "text": "I contacted Stephen Fishman, J.D., the author of Home Business Tax Deductions, to let him know that this question was missing from his book. He was kind enough to send a reply. My original phrasing of the question: If your car is used for both business and personal use, and you deduct via the actual expense method, do trips to the mechanic, gas station, and auto parts store to service or repair the car count as business miles, personal miles, or part-business-part-personal miles? What about driving the newly-purchased car home from the dealership? And his response: Good question. I can find nothing about this in IRS publication or elsewhere. However, common sense would tell us that the cost of driving to make car repairs should be deductible. If you use your car for business, it is a business expense, just like transporting any other piece of business equipment for repairs is a business expense. This should be so whether you use the standard mileage rate or actual expense method. You should probably reduce the amount of your deduction by the percentage of personal use of the car during the year. The same goes for driving a car home from the dealer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0df687f9e6ccd72053a10020ee9f6e67", "text": "\"ASSUMING you're talking about a property in the United States, the answer generally would be \"\"no\"\". You aren't actually paying any of the expenses for the property and yet you want to take the deductions for doing so? That's a rather cheeky move, I'd say! (grin) It probably would lead to some real strife with your brother, since he would have proper claim to those credit on the basis he's the one footing the bills for the property. Before you do anything like what you're talking about, it might be best to speak with him, because both of you are running the very real risk of an audit, and if that happens then I can guarantee the IRS will slap the daylights out of you for it. Your brother, I'm sure, is already claiming all of the deductions he can for what he's putting into the property, and on top of that you want to file for your half. What half are you referring to, when your out-of-pocket is zero? So what you're saying is, you think that between you and your brother you should be able to take a credit of 150% of the actual deductions...Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I strongly encourage you to talk to a tax professional, but if you get a different answer to this than what I've already given then I'd be stunned. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f2f3b95e2550c378f0602c5e4fe196a7	what is the point of the part b late enrollment penalty?	[ { "docid": "5f9f09617c2bfb4f65f2f9872181c656", "text": "\"The point of the enrollment penalty is basically the same as the ACA penalty. Any sort of health insurance - or really, any insurance - is funded by creating a risk pool of high and low risk people and pricing it so that the overall payments cover the total risk. That means, however, that on average the low risk people end up paying more than their share - more than it would have cost them, without the insurance, excepting any provider agreements to charge less (which is significant in the health insurance business). (Of course some of them do end up using more than they pay - but not on average, assuming the risk was calculated accurately.) While there isn't really a completely low risk pool in Medicare, there is a significant difference in utilization (=cost) between younger (65-70) and older enrollees. As such, for many health 65 year olds, it would be beneficial to not enroll in Medicare right away - delay a few years, if they're fully healthy, and wait until they are less healthy. Since Medicare won't turn you away for pre-existing conditions, that's a risk some would take. In order to accommodate for that, Medicare effectively says, \"\"If you didn't help subsidize the costs of the high users when you were younger, you need to pay more to make up for that fact\"\" - hence the enrollment penalty. The New York Times explains this in part in a 2006 article discussing Part D (which was new that year, and has a similar penalty): The purpose of the late enrollment penalty is to encourage people to sign up as soon as possible, before they have significant drug costs.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0c8b81f8345d86c56215b7b3dd6e4a8c", "text": "Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf74848ec20da92a2f1b08ed06aff948", "text": "Based on my experience with student tuition documents, it sounds like there is money due to you from the school. From your description, I would guess that your statement looks something like this: Credits: Debits: Registration === 3,400 Lab/Classroom Fees === 600 Balance: === -6,000 If that's the case, remember that this document is from the school's accounting system and so it is registering a negative from the perspective of the school's finances.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8af0641a100808169de7a38bde5ad96b", "text": "I was able to find several references that claim that the Indo-US treaty provision is limited to five years: Here it says this (on page 20): Generally the treaty exemption for students is limited to the first five calendar years that the international student is in the U.S. However there is no set time limit for students from Belgium, Bulgaria, China, The Netherlands, and Pakistan. However, I couldn't find any specific time limit neither in the treaty nor in the technical explanation. The explanation says: Thus, for example, an Indian resident who visits the United States as a student and becomes a U.S. resident according to the Code, other than by virtue of acquiring a green card, would continue to be exempt from U.S. tax in accordance with this Article so long as he is not a U.S. citizen and does not acquire immigrant status in the United States. The saving clause does apply to U.S. citizens and immigrants. However, the treaty explicitly says this: The benefits of this Article shall extend only for such period of time as may be reasonable or customarily required to complete the education or training undertaken. The reason for this last paragraph is to ensure that you don't artificially prolong your student status, and the 5 year limit may come out of the interpretation of this specific paragraph. Similar paragraph exists in the US-China treaty, and the explanation for that treaty says this: These exemptions may be claimed only for the period reasonably necessary to complete the education or training. In some cases, the course of study or training may last less than year. For most undergraduate college or university degrees the appropriate period will be four years. For some advanced degrees, such as in medicine, the required period may be longer, e.g., seven years. Based on this, it is my personal impression that if you're an undergraduate student and studying the same degree (and not, for example, finished your BA, and started your MS) - you are no longer eligible for the treaty benefit. But I suggest you ask a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for a more reliable tax advice on the matter. I'm not a tax professional and this is not a tax advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5dca99a685e3a33d3939c04c8107c93", "text": "From the instructions: If you do not need to make any adjustments to the basis or type of gain or loss (short-term or long-term) reported to you on Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) or to your gain or loss for any transactions for which basis has been reported to the IRS (normally reported on Form 8949 with box A checked), you do not have to include those transactions on Form 8949. Instead, you can report summary information for those transactions directly on Schedule D. For more information, see Exception 1, later. However, in case of ESPP and RSU, it is likely that you actually do need to make adjustments. Since 2014, brokers are no longer required to track basis for these, so you better check that the calculations are correct. If the numbers are right and you just summarized instead of reporting each on a separate line, its probably not an issue. As long as the gains reported are correct, no-one will waste their time on you. If you missed several thousand dollars because of incorrect calculations, some might think you were intentionally trying to hide something by aggregating and may come after you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77949aaa5c2f792d03459069b783724d", "text": "Assuming US/IRS: If you filed on time and paid what you believed was the correct amount, they might be kind and let it go. But don't assume they will. If you can't file on time, you are supposed to file estimated taxes before the deadline, and to make that payment large enough to cover what you are likely to owe them. If there is excess, you get it back when you file the actual forms. If there is a shortfall, you may be charged fees, essentially interest on the money you still owe them calculated from the submission due date. If you fail to file anything before the due date, then the fees/interest surcharge is calculated on the entire amount still due; effectively the same as if you had filled an estimated return erroneously claiming you owed nothing. Note that since the penalty scales with the amount still due, large errors do cost you more than small ones. And before anyone asks: no, the IRS doesn't pay interest if you submit the forms early and they owe you money. I've sometimes wondered whether they're missing a bet there, and if it would be worth rewarding people to file earlier in order to spread out the work a bit better, but until someone sells them on that idea...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8afd7222d68da2274599759df354008", "text": "ADP does not know your full tax situation and while the standard exemption system (actually designed by the IRS not ADP) works fairly well for most people it is an approximation. This system is designed so most people will end up with a small refund while some people will end up owing small amounts. So, while it is possible that ADP has messed up the calculations it is unlikely this is the cause. The most likely cause is that approximation ends ups making you pay less tax during the year than you actually owe. A few people like your friend may end up owing large amounts due to various circumstances. It is always your responsibility to make sure you pay enough tax throughout the year. While this technically means that you need to do your taxes every quarter during the year to make sure you pay the correct tax during the year, for most people this ends up being unnecessary as the approximation works fine. It is possible the exemption system failed your friend, but much more commonly people owe penalties because they put the wrong number of exemptions or had other side income. On a related note, most people in finance would argue that your situation where you owe some money at tax time, but not so much that you have to pay a penalty, is actually the best way to go. Getting a tax refund actually means you paid more tax than you needed to. This is similar to giving an interest-free loan to the government.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0df54c4fd766fcffc01e0aaeb445237d", "text": "The IRS allows filers to attach a statement explaining the reason for late filing. I have had clients do this in the past, and there has never been an issue (not that that guarantees anything, but is still good to know). Generally, the IRS is much more lenient when a taxpayer voluntarily complies with a filing requirement, even if it's late, than if they figure it out themselves and send a notice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5159aca6cd16095812436f5b37f862b1", "text": "My wife and I have done a good job teaching our daughter, now 15, that one does the right thing, simply because it's the right thing to do. This may not work for every child, but it did for us. Her motivation was never punishment, we explained that if she did the wrong thing, it's awful to have to live with that. On one hand, THEAO's answer is correct, the stick the IRS wields is the audit and fines. I suppose from a legal standpoint, we comply with laws to avoid punishment. I find this to be unfortunate. To get back on topic - I started with an answer more appropriate to Parenting because I have a very precocious child for whom I addressed this question a decade ago. The latter portion of my response helps to give tangible benefits which have value even if less than the tax you might be paying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c8f19f53a809596a64faf8c252528f6", "text": "\"Hi Alex. I've been alerted you're seeking a better answer to this question. ;-) Please accept my apologies for not coming back to this question sooner – it got buried. :-/ No, in general you cannot make an early withdrawal penalty-free from a 403(b) account to use towards the purchase of a home. Withdrawals before age 59 1/2 are generally subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty, on top of ordinary income tax. Some 403(b) plans may allow for a loan, but the availability and conditions vary by plan. If you'd consider a loan, you should check with your plan administrator or your plan's Summary Plan Description – often available at one's company intranet or HR web site. (I do contract work for an HR consulting firm that assists others in building such sites, and SPDs are usually something made available for download in a \"\"Retirement\"\" or \"\"Wealth\"\" section of such web sites.) Note that a loan from a 403(b) would need to be paid back into the plan over some period of time, e.g. 5 years, though I have come across examples of some plans that do permit a longer pay back period of 10, 15, even 30 years if the loan is used for a home purchase. But consider this article: The 403(b) Loan: The New Debtors Prison? Finally, to your last point: Yes, if you have an IRA, there are rules permitting withdrawal of up to $10,000 penalty-free for use towards the purchase of a first home. See page 53 in IRS Publication 590. There's also a good article at Fool.com: All About IRAs - For First Time Home Buyers. Such a withdrawal from a traditional IRA remains subject to ordinary income tax. If have a Roth IRA, you can withdraw free of income tax but you need to pay attention to the Roth IRA 5 Year Rule. Additional Resources:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27b9e5f5f85fe3439903cc3d99d16902", "text": "Students at college employed by the college are exempt from the FICA taxes (Social Security and Medicare). You are not exempt from federal and state income taxes, but if you are a part time employee making a small amount of money, you probably aren't projected to be paid enough between now and the end of the year to trigger the withholding. If you are concerned that your tax burden for the year will require you to send in money at tax time next year, you can estimate what your taxes will be, and if you determine that you will owe too much, you can fill out a new W-4 form with your HR department and request that additional tax be withheld.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ef9a41ae9c48fc552d8ff06b44d2360", "text": "I checked this myself and there is no monetary penalty for late filing. However, since I am late I have to do all publication over again which costs me extra $50.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d8138041b3ccb69d73a2e767b142572", "text": "\"Not sure I understood, so I'll summarize what I think I read: You got scholarship X, paid tuition Y < X, and you got 1098T to report these numbers. You're asking whether you need to pay taxes on (X-Y) that you end up with as income. The answer is: of course. You can have even lower tax liability if you don't include the numbers on W2, right? So why doesn't it occur to you to ask \"\"if I don't include W2 in the software, it comes up with a smaller tax - do I need to include it?\"\"?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48c4bf6d1fdd46a20e164bf4f6de2e52", "text": "The very link the OP provided focuses on a group of people who lost their jobs to H1B imports. The people coming in had no special skillset and the people who lost their jobs were required to spend months training their replacements or forfeit their severance pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f716102e0f31f3293144c890a959de93", "text": "I think he is saying that the vote was not the reform needed. Some of you will be too young to understand but my only class action that I was in was Blockbuster. I ended up with like $1.45. If I had to guess I would spend about 20-50 bucks a month in late fees. Sometimes it was my fault because if I missed the weird time to return them I felt I might as well keep them for the fees and would be late again. I did not agree to sue them. I just did not opt out. Blockbuster made tons off of me and people like me. The lawyers who really just put people together as a class made millions. The customer is a pawn. That is what I think he means. You would need meaningful reform in the class action space for this to really matter. This is one of our boys are going to be sued and we should help them. Congress has basically protected Equifax downside risk. Yetto address the reality of the fact that the hack impacts the people congress supposedly works for and was caused by gross negligence. Maybe they should be building an RFP to replace them, not protect them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82e4a219be65afcddb94527e7ceb52fb", "text": "\"What is a 403b? A 403(b) plan is a tax-advantaged retirement savings plan available for public education organizations, some non-profit employers (only US Tax Code 501(c)(3) organizations), cooperative hospital service organizations and self-employed ministers in the United States. Kind of a rare thing. A bit more here: http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/teacheroptions.htm under investment options Equity Indexed Annuities are a special type of contract between you and an insurance company. During the accumulation period — when you make either a lump sum payment or a series of payments — the insurance company credits you with a return that is based on changes in an equity index, such as the S&P 500 Composite Stock Price Index. The insurance company typically guarantees a minimum return. Guaranteed minimum return rates vary. After the accumulation period, the insurance company will make periodic payments to you under the terms of your contract, unless you choose to receive your contract value in a lump sum. For more information, please see our \"\"Fast Answer\"\" on Equity Indexed Annuities, and read FINRA's investor alert entitled Equity-Indexed Annuitiies — A Complex Choice. So perhaps \"\"equity indexed annuities\"\" is the more correct thing to search for and not \"\"insurance funds\"\"?\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b13db1e601f8e6bfab5d0051e4f445b8	Dispute credit card transaction with merchant or credit card company?	[ { "docid": "cca176d56c7f5661cc84926585f6417a", "text": "\"You should dispute the transaction with the credit card. Describe the story and attach the cash payment receipt, and dispute it as a duplicate charge. There will be no impact on your score, but if you don't have the cash receipt or any other proof of the alternative payment - it's your word against the merchant, and he has proof that you actually used your card there. So worst case - you just paid twice. If you dispute the charge and it is accepted - the merchant will pay a penalty. If it is not accepted - you may pay the penalty (on top of the original charge, depending on your credit card issuer - some charge for \"\"frivolous\"\" charge backs). It will take several more years for either the European merchants to learn how to deal with the US half-baked chip cards, or the American banks to start issue proper chip-and-PIN card as everywhere else. Either way, until then - if the merchant doesn't know how to handle signatures with the American credit cards - just don't use them. Pay cash. Given the controversy in the comments - my intention was not to say \"\"no, don't talk to the merchant\"\". From the description of the situation it didn't strike me as the merchant would even bother to consider the situation. A less than honest merchant knows that you have no leverage, and since you're a tourist and will probably not be returning there anyway - what's the worst you can do to them? A bad yelp review? You can definitely get in touch with the merchant and ask for a refund, but I would not expect much to come out from that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccc83c20986bc4ce66ffc6f1c1bd529f", "text": "Most merchants (also in Europe) are reasonable, and typically are willing to work with you. credit card companies ask if you tried to work with the merchant first, so although they do not enforce it, it should be the first try. I recommend to give it a try and contact them first. If it doesn't work, you can always go to the credit card company and have the charge reversed. None of this has any effect on your credit score (except if you do nothing and then don't pay your credit card bill). For the future: when a transaction supposedly 'doesn't go through', have them write this on the receipt and give it to you. Only then pay cash. I am travelling 100+ days a year in Europe, using my US credit cards all the time, and there were never any issues - this is not a common problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26767224bfa3076a9bb3993ea4b67af9", "text": "\"As a rule of thumb, go in the order of proximity to the transaction. This would typically mean: Side note: I own a website that provides an online service that accepts PayPal and credit cards (via PayPal), and I personally have experience with all 3 of the above options. I can tell you from the merchant's point of view that I would also prefer the same order. I've had people contact my customer service department asking for a refund and we always immediately comply. Some people never contact us and just file a dispute directly with PayPal, and although refunding through the PayPal dispute is just as easy as refunding directly, it always makes me ask, \"\"Why didn't they just contact us first?\"\" One time we had a customer skip us and PayPal, and filed a dispute directly with their Credit Card. The CC company contacted PayPal and PayPal contacted us. The process was the same from my point of view, I just clicked a button saying issue refund. But my $5 refund cost me an additional $20 due to the CC dispute. Now that I know this I will never approve a CC dispute again. Anytime one happens I would just issue a refund directly, and then notify the dispute that their CC has already been refunded, which should end the dispute.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39ce77a9a6f73da8194f996943405e13", "text": "\"It's very straightforward for an honest vendor to refund the charge, and the transaction only costs him a few pennies at most. If you initiate a chargeback, the merchant is immediately charged an irreversible fee of about $20 simply as an administrative fee. He'll also have to refund the charge if it's reversed. To an honest merchant who would've happily refunded you, it's unfair and hurtful. In any case, now that he's out-of-pocket on the administrative fee, his best bet is to fight the chargeback - since he's already paid for the privilege to fight. Also, a chargeback is a \"\"strike\"\" against the merchant. If his chargeback rate is higher than the norm in his industry, they may raise his fees, or ban him entirely from taking Visa/MC. For a small merchant doing a small volume, a single chargeback can have an impact on his overall chargeback rate. The \"\"threshold of proof\"\" for a chargeback varies by patterns of fraud and the merchant's ability to recover. If you bought something readily fungible to cash - like a gift card, casino chips, concert tickets etc., forget it. Likewise if you already extracted the value (last month's Netflix bill). Credit card chargeback only withdraws a payment method. Your bill is still due and payable. The merchant is within his rights to \"\"dun\"\" you for payment and send you to collections or court. Most merchants don't bother, because they know it'll be a fight, an unpleasant distraction and bad for business. But they'd be within their rights. Working with the merchant to settle the matter is a final resolution.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "213bfb9c6674440fc32a5733bc2f5010", "text": "\"It's not usually apparent to the average consumer, but there's actually two stages to collecting a payment, and two ways to undo it. The particular combination that occurs may lead to long refund times, on top of any human delays (like Ben Miller's answer addresses). When you pay with a credit card, it is typically only authorized - the issuing bank says \"\"I'm setting this money aside for this transaction\"\", but no money actually changes hands. You'll typically see this on your statement as a \"\"pending\"\" charge. Only later, in a process called \"\"settlement\"\", does your bank actually send money to the merchant's bank. Typically, this process starts the same day that the authorization happens (at close of business), but it may take a few days to complete. In the case of an ecommerce transaction, the merchant may not be allowed to start it until they ship whatever you ordered. On the flip side, a given transaction can be voided off or money can be sent back to your card. In the first case, the transaction will just disappear altogether; in the second, it may disappear or you may see both the payment and the refund on your statement. Voids can be as fast as an authorization, but once a transaction has started settlement, it can't be voided any more. Sending money back (a \"\"refund\"\") goes through the same settlement process as above, and can take just as long. So, to specifically apply that to your question: You get the SMS when the transaction is authorized, even though no money has yet moved. The refund money won't show up until several days after someone indicates that it should happen, and there's no \"\"reverse authorize\"\" operation to let you or your bank know that it's coming.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "817577b7bcd07bbd91bb72275efb94be", "text": "Dispute the charge. Receiving the wrong product is grounds for dispute.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "288b1cb6d1f9f84aeb746dd48ba1e61c", "text": "\"You should probably call the travel agency and complain. Not that they will care, but if by any chance they do - they can ask PayPal to remove the block. This is what is called \"\"authorization pending\"\". Usually, a credit card transaction has two stages: The merchant requests its payment processor to authorize the transaction. The processor will contact the card issuer with the transaction details and will get the authorization code which will be passed to the merchant. At that stage the transaction enters the \"\"pending\"\" stage on your account. The merchant submits the transaction and gets the money from its payment processor, who forwards the transaction to the card issuer and gets the money from there. The card issuer charges the card owner. The transaction should have the same authorization code received in step #1, and by matching it to the pending transaction, the card issuer removes the pending transaction, and posts the actual transaction. However, if the transaction in step #2 doesn't include the code from step #1, the match doesn't occur and you see the situation you have now: both the actual transaction and the pending are active. In this case the merchant should contact its merchant processor and request the revocation of the authorization code. The processor will then forward the request to the card issuer, who will then remove the pending transaction. As you can see - multiple parties have to actually care for that to happen, and many times they don't, because they don't have to. As to the period - it's up to the card issuer (PayPal in your case), but 1 month is a very long time. Usually it's about a week or two, unless it's a hotel/car rental. In any case - once it expires, it will go away on its own and if you don't mind for the amounts to be blocked until then - just let it expire. The fact that you used a debit card for this transaction is irrelevant. Unless it was a pin transaction, debit card transactions are processed as credit card transactions by processors. For pin transactions, there process is different and you shouldn't see doubles. If it was a pin transaction - contact PayPal and check with them what's going on. Generally, PayPal is not to be used as a \"\"bank account\"\", it is merely a payment processor, and it is advised to remove the money from there as soon as possible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e788b9c0aaa2183ef5c768ba4be1f73", "text": "I used to work for a online payment posting company. Anytime a payment is made via Credit Card to a company that does not have PCI DSS(aka the ability/certification to store credit card information) there is a MD5 checksum(of the confirmation code, not the Credit Card information) that get sent to the company from the processor(billing tree, paypal, etc). The company should be able to send this information back to the processor in order to refund the payment. If the company isn't able to do this, to be honest they shouldn't be taking online credit card payments. And by all means do not send your credit card information in an email. As said above, call the company's customer service line and give them the info to credit your account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52b93ea21402f1d2f3d73a6d680c120c", "text": "I have already talked to them over the phone and they insist they haven't charged me yet, and I will not be charged. When I informed them I had in fact been charged they agreed it would be reversed. So I have tried to resolve the issue and I don't have any confidence they will reverse the charge as it has not been done yet. They are difficult to communicate which makes the whole process more difficult. Your best next step is to call the credit card company and share this story. I believe the likely result is that the credit card company will initiate a charge back. My question is, is this a valid reason to file a chargeback on my credit card? Yes. If you attempted to work it out with the vendor and it is not working out, this is an appropriate time to initiate a charge back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c924f196d6c4d0c392a1e94967d8ebd", "text": "You should start a dispute with the credit card company, and they might be able to recover some/all of the money. Usually, if you act fast enough, credit companies (on the merchant's side) have enough of the deposits not yet disbursed to the merchant, and they'll just reverse the charge. The earlier you start the process - the more chances you have. Otherwise you'll have to sue, I'm not familiar with the Canadian legal system.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7a54ca9b45f248ad3c03b5eb173e2a2", "text": "There are three parties involved here: there's the store that issued you the card, then they have some bank that's actually handling the account, and there is some network (VISA, MasterCard, etc.) that the transactions go through. So one avenue to consider is seeing whether all three are aware of you canceling the card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a27715be676e47c2c991c5717c23bdfa", "text": "\"I'm not sure if this answer is going to win me many friends on reddit, but here goes... There's no good reason why they couldn't have just told him the current balance shown on their records, BUT... There are some good reasons why they can't quote a definitive \"\"payoff\"\" balance to instantly settle the account: It's very possible to charge something today, and not have it show up on Chase's records until tomorrow, or Monday, or later. There are still places that process paper credit-card transactions, or that deal with 3rd-party payment processors who reconcile transactions M-F, 9-5ish, and so on. - Most transactions these days are authorized the instant you swipe the card, and the merchant won't process until they get authorization back from the CC company. But sometimes those authorizations come from third-party processors who don't bill Chase until later. Some of them might not process a Friday afternoon transaction until close-of-business Monday. - Also, there are things like taxicab fares that might be collected when you exit the cab, but the record exists only in the taxi's onboard machine until they plug it into something else at the end of the shift. - There are still some situations (outdoor flea-markets, auctions, etc) where the merchant takes a paper imprint, and doesn't actually process the payment until they physically mail it in or whatever. - Some small businesses have information-security routines in place where only one person is allowed to process credit-card payments, but where multiple customer service reps are allowed to accept the CC info, write it down on one piece of paper, then either physically hand the paper to the person with processing rights, or deposit the paper in a locked office or mail-slot for later processing. This is obviously not an instant-update system for Chase. (Believe it or not, this system is actually considered to be more secure than retaining computerized records unless the business has very rigorous end-to-end info security). So... there are a bunch of legit reasons why a CC company can't necessarily tell you this instant that you only need to pay $x and no more to close the account (although there is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to quote your current balance). What happens when you \"\"close an account\"\" is basically that they stop accepting new charges that were made after your notification, but they will still accept and bill you for legit charges that you incurred before you gave them notice. So basically, they \"\"turn off\"\" the credit-card, but they can't guarantee how much you owe until the next billing cycle after this one closes: - You notify them to \"\"close\"\" the account. They stop authorizing new charges. - Their merchant agreements basically give the merchant a certain window to process charges. The CC company process legit charges that were made prior to \"\"closing\"\" the account. - The CC company sends you the final statement after that window for any charges has expired, - When that final statement is paid (or if it is zero), THAT is when the account is settled and reported to Equifax etc as \"\"paid\"\". So it's hard to tell from your post who was being overly semantic/unreasonable. If the CC company refused to tell the current balance, they were just being dickheads. But if they refused to promise that the current balance shown is enough to instantly settle the account forever, they had legit reasons. Hope that helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ba2c626ca84ace787e7a478a3acbf83", "text": "There generally isn't much in the way of real identity verification, at least in the US and online. The protection you get is that with most credit cards you can report your card stolen (within some amount of time) and the fraudulent charges dropped. The merchant is the one that usually ends up paying for it if it gets charged back so it's usually in the merchant's best interest to do verification. However the cost of doing so (inconvenience to the customer, or if it's an impulse buy, giving them more time to change their mind, etc) is often greater than the occasional fraudulent charge so they usually don't do too much about it unless they're in a business where it's a frequent problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe6c6b035064b9df1adf8d9f29e0d9c0", "text": "In some case the customer wants the name to be cryptic or misleading. They don't want to advertise the true nature of the business they visited. In other cases the transaction may be reported through another business. A few years ago the local PTA was having a silent auction as a fundraiser. A local business allowed the PTA to use their credit card reader to process transactions over a certain amount. Of course when the credit card statement arrived it looked like you spent $500 at the florist. I have seen PayPal listed when donating to some small charities. I have noted another case where confusion can occur. I used a debit card to buy a soda from a vending machine: the name and location were the name of the vending machine company and the location of their main office. It didn't say soda machine city A. It said Joe's vending company city B. In most cases the business and the credit card company want to make it easy to identify the transactions to keep the cost of research and charge backs to a minimum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e96696585aa02e568d19847187f7acd", "text": "Your simplest option, and probably the only reasonable one, is to dispute the original charge with your bank. Since you used a debit card and not a credit card, you don't have quite as much protection, but you still can dispute the charge and ask your bank to step in and help. See this debit card dispute article for more information on disputing a charge for a debit card. You may or may not have a case here, depending on the specifics. If the merchant accepted your payment without letting you know you should have used paypal, you may have a shot at getting the full refund; but if it was clearly labelled that you should have used paypal, it may be harder.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69eacef6ab630c1a74ab135faf233369", "text": "\"When processing credit/debit cards there is a choice made by the company on how they want to go about doing it. The options are Authorization/Capture and Sale. For online transactions that require the delivery of goods, companies are supposed to start by initially Authorizing the transaction. This signals your bank to mark the funds but it does not actually transfer them. Once the company is actually shipping the goods, they will send a Capture command that tells the bank to go ahead and transfer the funds. There can be a time delay between the two actions. 3 days is fairly common, but longer can certainly be seen. It normally takes a week for a gas station local to me to clear their transactions. The second one, a Sale is normally used for online transactions in which a service is immediately delivered or a Point of Sale transaction (buying something in person at a store). This action wraps up both an Authorization and Capture into a single step. Now, not all systems have the same requirements. It is actually fairly common for people who play online games to \"\"accidentally\"\" authorize funds to be transferred from their bank. Processing those refunds can be fairly expensive. However, if the company simply performs an Authorization and never issues a capture then it's as if the transaction never occurred and the costs involved to the company are much smaller (close to zero) I'd suspect they have a high degree of parents claiming their kids were never authorized to perform transactions or that fraud was involved. If this is the case then it would be in the company's interest to authorize the transaction, apply the credits to your account then wait a few days before actually capturing the funds from the bank. Depending upon the amount of time for the wait your bank might have silently rolled back the authorization. When it came time for the company to capture, then they'd just reissue it as a sale. I hope that makes sense. The point is, this is actually fairly common. Not just for games but for a whole host of areas in which fraud might exist (like getting gas).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02f0413df7c358b8eb5703f2298318a0", "text": "\"The fee structures are different for PIN-based transactions versus \"\"credit\"\" style transactions. Usually there is a fixed fee (around $0.50) for PIN-based transactions and a varying fixed fee plus a percentage for credit transactions (something like $0.35 + 2.5%). There are also value limits for PIN-based transactions... I believe that you cannot exceed $400 in most places. The signature feature of credit transactions isn't there to protect you, it signifies your agreement to comply with the contract you and the credit card issuer, protecting the merchant from some types of chargeback. Some merchants waive the signature for low dollar value transactions to increase convenience and speed up the lines. All of your other questions are answered elsewhere on this site.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "265f8df05a743358d9819a3cef8fc89b", "text": "I would go speak to the bank manager. With Wells, you have to make sure it is the bank manager and not a service manager or something you are talking to (I learned that a few months ago). Tell her/him exactly what happened in detail and that you want the credit card closed and the credit inquiry removed from your credit report. Further, say that once all of that is done, you will decide whether to continue banking with them and whether any legal action is appropriate. If they give you any kind of push back, I'd get advice from a lawyer. The truth is they did open an account against your expressed wishes and it required them to check your credit so it does constitute fraud unless they can produce a signed document saying you agreed to the card. Edit: I just saw that this happened about a year ago. It may have been easier if you had done something at the time and may be more difficult if you've used the card in the meantime.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fee4c2ada624f9f9dfd3cf43e073b65", "text": "There are different ways of credit card purchase authorizations. if some choose less secure method it's their problem. Merchants are charged back if a stolen card is used.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9fed385869b8018175027d5acfb7a158	Is it a good practice to keep salary account and savings account separate?	[ { "docid": "70ea11dccd38402e5345271ba4ee0a4b", "text": "\"This seems like a risky setup. All it takes is one missed or delayed transfer for you to overdraw your \"\"savings\"\". There is a benefit to keeping your regular expenses and savings separate, and I can see some benefits in having multiple checking accounts depending on how you organize your finances, but I don't see a benefit to having a paycheck go to one account and all regular spending (and \"\"savings\"\") come from another. It requires some regular maintenance to transfer money over to use for regular spending. I suppose if you have a checking account that earns interest, but requires direct deposits, and a savings account that earns slightly higher interest you could squeeze out a bit, but it's probably not worth the effort these days unless you have a LOT of money going in and out. Also, it should not be easy to tap into savings, but your day-to-day spending should be very accessible. All those factors suggest (to me) that your paycheck should go into your regular spending account, and keep your savings separate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e38d8aebd1e6dc809ee56496ae8005b0", "text": "It possibly could have made sense historically when interest rates were higher. In the UK, you used to get negligible (if any) interest on a current (checking) account, but could get modest interest from a savings account, so transferring the bulk of your salary to a savings account and paying from there (or transferring back to the current account when needed) could make some sense (but even then was probably not worth the effort). Nowadays (at least in the UK), most (easy access) savings accounts pay very little interest, but there are current accounts (example list here from comparison site) that pay more interest provided you go through several hoops. Typically you have to pay your salary (or a minimum number of £000s per month) into the account, and have a minimum number of direct debits going out. Some have fees, some only last for a year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02d85f7e04b21aed3be88ef5151f5718", "text": "Well the idea of 'good practice' is subjective so obviously there won't be an objectively correct answer. I suspect that whatever article you read was making this recommendation as a budgeting tool to physically isolate your reserve of cash from your spending account(s) as a means to keep spending in check. This is a common idea that I've heard often enough, though I don't think I am alone in believing that it's unnecessary except in the case of a habitual spender who cannot be trusted to stay within a budget. I suppose there is a very small argument to be made about security where if you use a bank account for daily spending and that account is somehow compromised, the short-term damage is limited. In the end, I would argue that if you're in control of spending and budgeting, have a single source of income that is from regular employment, and you use a credit card for most of your daily spending, there's no compelling reason to have more than one bank account. Some people have a checking and savings account simply for the psychological effect of separating their money, some couples have 3-4 accounts for income, personal spending, and savings, other people have separate accounts for business/self-employment funds, and a few people like having many accounts that act as hard limits for spending in different categories. Of course, the other submitted answer is correct in noting that the more accounts that you have, the more you are opening yourself up to accounting issues if funds don't transfer the way you expect them to (assuming you're emptying the accounts often). Some banks are more lenient with this, however, and may offer you the option to freely 'overdraft' by pulling funding from another pre-designated account that you also hold at the same bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ace3a7e909e6efb41e12fb6a93b3f6d", "text": "In the United States, savings accounts generally have higher interest rates than checking or money market accounts. Part of this is the government restriction on the number of automated transactions per month that can be done on a savings account: this is supposed to allow banks to lengthen the time frame of the cash part of their investments for savings. This limit is why direct deposit of one's paycheck is almost always into a checking or money market account... and why many people have savings accounts, especially with Internet banks, because they pay significantly higher interest rates than brick and mortar banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c6227709c0c9fb4516bfb31f0e45aef", "text": "I can't immediately think of a reason to keep your paycheck and spending account separate, unless it be because you want to keep your savings in a money market or savings account and you deposit your paycheck into a checking account. However, I do have one reason from my experience to keep the bulk of your savings away from accounts that you transfer stuff out of. I used to keep all my cash savings in an account from which I transferred money into my brokerage account (my paycheck was also deposited there). A couple of years back a state that I haven't lived in since I was a child took $40,000 out of my account. The broker mistakenly told the state I lived there and the state made some mistakes about how much tax I would owe. Without either one telling me, the state helped themselves to my checking account to cover the bill. When I called, both acknowledged that they were wrong, but it still took a long time (many months) and lots of letters and threats (I was close to paying a lawyer) before they returned my money. It was worse because this was my savings for a down payment on a home and having it taken and not returned affected my ability to buy the house I wanted. If I hadn't had my money in that account, they would have tried to garnish my wages, and would have immediately stopped their attempt once they found out they were in the wrong. Now I keep cash savings in an account that I never pay taxes out of and do not use to transfer money directly to any broker or anyone who might give my account number to an inept government.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8b519843c1cfb257ec05d9e29eb780c", "text": "In my opinion, separating your money into separate accounts is a matter of personal preference. I can only think of two main reasons why people might suggest separating your bank accounts in this way: security and accounting. The security reasoning might go something like this: My employer has access to my bank account, because he direct deposits my salary into my account. I don't want my employer to have access to all my money, so I'll have a separate account that my employer has access to, and once the salary is deposited, I can move that money into my real account. The fault in this reasoning is that a direct deposit setup doesn't really give your employer withdrawal access to your account, and your employer doesn't have any reason to pull money out of your account after he has paid you. If fraud is going to happen, it much more likely to happen in the account that you are doing your spending out of. The other reason might be accounting. Perhaps you have several bank accounts, and you use the different accounts to separate your money for different purposes. For example, you might have a checking account that you do most of your monthly spending out of, you might have a savings account that you use to store your emergency fund, and you have more savings accounts to keep track of how much you have saved toward your next car, or your vacation, or your Christmas fund, or whatever. After you get your salary deposited, you can move some into your spending account and some into your various savings accounts for different purposes. Instead of having many bank accounts, I find it easier to do my budgeting/accounting on my own, not relying on the bank accounts to tell me how much money I have allocated to each purpose. I only have one checking account where my income goes; my own records keep track of how much money in that account is set aside for each purpose. When the checking account balance gets too large, I move a chunk of it over to my one savings account, which earns a little more interest than the checking account does. I can always move money back into my checking account if I need to spend it for some reason, and the amount of money in each of the two accounts is not directly related to the purpose of the money. In summary, I don't see a good reason for this type of general recommendation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ded88302704edac9ccacb87a3e81e195", "text": "Personally, I keep two regular checking accounts at different banks. One gets a direct deposit totaling the sum of my regular monthly bills and a prorated provision for longer term regular bills like semi-annual car insurance premiums. I leave a buffer in the account to account for the odd expensive electrical bill or rate increase or whatever. One gets a direct deposit of the rest which I then allocate to savings and spending. It makes sense to me to separate off regular planned expenses (rent/mortgage, utility bills, insurance premiums) from spending money because it lets me put the basics of my life on autopilot. An added benefit is I have a failover checking account in the event something happens to one of them. I don't keep significant amounts of money in either account and don't give transfer access to the savings accounts that store the bulk of my money. I wear a tinfoil hat when it comes to automatic bank transfers and account access... It doesn't make sense to me to keep deposits separate from spending, it makes less sense to me to spend off of a savings account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe22b935167e0583aa291382475e7406", "text": "\"I live in the UK so it's a little different but generally you'd have one account (a current account) which would have a Visa/MasterCard debit card associated before working and any high street bank (don't know what the US equivalent would be, but big banks such as HSBC/Santander) will offer you a savings account which pays a v small amount of interest as well as bonds as all sorts. From what I know most people have their salary paid into their current account (which would be the spending account with a card associated) and would transfer a set amount to a savings account. Personally, I have a current account and a few different saving accounts (which do not have cards associated). One savings account has incoming transfers/money received and I can use online banking to transfer that to my current account \"\"instantly\"\" (at least I've done it standing at ATM's and the money is there seconds later - but again this is the UK, not US). This way, my primary current account never has more than £10-15 in it, whenever I know I need money I'll transfer it from the instant access account. This has saved me before when I've been called by my bank for transactions a few £100 each which would have been authorised I kept all my money in my current account. If you don't have money (and dont have an overdraft!) what are they meant to do with it? The other savings account I had setup so that I could not transfer money out without going into a branch with ID/etc, less to stop someone stealing my money and more to be physically unable to waste money on a Friday if I don't arrive at the bank before 4/5PM, so saves a lot of time. US banking is a nightmare, I don't imagine any of this will translate well and I think if you had your salary paid into your savings on a Friday and missed the bank with no online banking facilities/transfers that aren't instant you'd be in a lot of trouble. If the whole \"\"current + instant access savings account\"\" thing doesn't work to well, I'm sure a credit/charge (!!!) card will work instead of a separate current account. Spend everything on that (within reason and what you can pay back/afford to pay stupid interest on) on a card with a 0% purchase rate and pay it back using an account you're paid into but is never used for expenses, some credit cards might even reward you for this type of thing but again, credit can be dangerous. A older retired relative of mine has all of his money in one account, refuses a debit card from the bank every time he is offered (he has a card, but it isn't a visa/mastercard, it's purely used for authentication in branch) and keeps that in a safe indoors! Spends everything he needs on his credit card and writes them a sort of cheque (goes into the bank with ID and signs it) for the full balance when his statement arrives. No online banking! No chance of him getting key logged any time soon. tldr; the idea of separating the accounts your money goes in (salary wise) and goes out (spending) isn't a bad idea. that is if wire transfers don't take 3-5 days where you are aha.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08a7e80ef513aa042d2107370f60bbf5", "text": "\"I pretty much only use my checking. What's the downside? Checking accounts don't pay as much interest as savings account. Oh, but wait, interest rates have been zero for nearly 10 years. So there is very little benefit to keeping money in my savings account. In fact, I had two savings accounts, and Well Fargo closed one of them because I hadn't used it in years. Downsides of savings accounts: You are limited to 5 transfers per month into or out of them. No such limit with checking. Upsides of savings accounts: Well, maybe you will be less likely to spend the money. Why don't you just have your pay go into your checking and then just transfer \"\"extra money\"\" out of it, rather than the reverse? If you want to put money \"\"away\"\" so that you save it, assuming you're in the U.S.A., open a traditional IRA. Max deposit of $5500/year, and it reduces your taxable income. It's not a bad idea to have a separate account that you don't touch except for in an emergency. But, for me, the direction of flow is from work, to checking, to savings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c964a9c684aca655197840dd636a5b7", "text": "\"There is no \"\"should\"\", but I am strongly of the view that if you have savings of several months' salary or more, they should not only be in a separate account, but with a separate financial institution, or even split between two others. A fraction of a percent of extra interest is scant reward for massively increased personal risk. The reason for this is buried in the T&Cs. There is almost always a \"\"right of set off\"\": if one account is overdrawn, the bank reserves the right to take money from your other accounts. Which sounds fair enough, until you consider the imbalance of power. Maybe your salary account gets hacked? Maybe that's the bank's fault? Maybe the bank has made an accounting error? Maybe the bank has gone bust? Maybe you need to employ a lawyer to act on your behalf? Oh dear, you no longer have any savings. () This cannot happen if your savings are with a completely separate institution. Then, the only way that the salary account bank can touch your savings is by winning in the courts. If you split the savings two ways, you have also given yourself the reassurance that in the worst case only half your savings have been affected. \"\"Don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\" is proverbial. And there's a folk song that's lodged in my memory... \"\"As through this world I wander, I've met all kinds of funny men. Some rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain pen. Yet as far as I have wandered, as far as I have roamed, I've never seen an outlaw drive a family from their home\"\". I've never been in this sort of trouble and the UK's laws tend to favour the banks' customers. I don't even hate bankers. Yet even so, why take this risk when it can so easily be reduced? () If this sounds far-fetched, read the news, for example https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/02/hbos-manager-and-other-city-financiers-jailed-over-245m-loans-scam\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f06df2f3b49d7933af9b328f77400e7", "text": "\"There are a lot of good answers, but I will share my experience. First, a savings account needs to be for savings. If your in the US you have \"\"Regulation D\"\" to deal with and that will bite you on the rear if you go over those limits. Specially easy to do if your purchasing from a savings account. Next having an \"\"Income\"\" account and a \"\"Spending\"\" account can be a very good tool to build a nest egg. So for example you get $1500 into your income account and then move $1000 to your spending account then budget based on that $1000. This is an amazing thing to do, so long as you have the discipline to never transfer that extra $500, and pretend your broke when you run out of the $1000. That being said there is no reason that you can't do that in one account. It's all preference. My wife and I use YNAB (an envelope budgeting system) to do just that. We don't need the separate accounts. We are no more likely to \"\"not spend\"\" in one account then we are to \"\"not spend\"\" in two accounts. It's all just self discipline and what you need to do. This does lead to the situation we call YNAB broke. It's when we have to start choosing between \"\"going hungry\"\" or getting that new DVD, even though our bank account has $5,000 in it. It's even harder when you choose \"\"go hungry\"\" and have to follow through with it, even though you have enough to buy a used car in your bank account. But rather it's \"\"YNAB broke\"\" or your spending account is empty and your income account it full, the result is the same. It's up to \"\"you\"\" to have the self discipline not to spend. Rather that's in one account or two makes little difference.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7c21c567f8858dae9181f8fb9ab5db7", "text": "My wife and I do this. We have one account for income and one for expenditures (and around 7 others for dedicated savings.) Doing this we are forcing ourselves to keep track of all expenditures as we have to manually transfer funds from one to the other, we try to do this periodically (every Wednesday) and then keep the expenditures within what is actually on the account. It is a really good way to keep track of everything. Bear in mind that our bank provides a fast handy smartphone app where we both can check our account as well as transfer funds in less than 10 seconds. (Fingerprint authentication, instant funds transfer as well as zero fees for transfers.) Right now we have a credit card each attached to the expenditures account, but earlier we only had a debit card each and no credit cards. Meaning that when the weekly funds ran out we where simply not able to pay. We did this to mimic living only on cash and when the cash runs out you simply have to stop buying stuff. And at the same time we could accrue quite a bit of savings. I would definitely recommend this if you have problems with over expenditures.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "977c491090bccd98c5020fd2ef786445", "text": "If you can live with managing the individual category amounts yourself, this is trivial. Just set up a spreadsheet listing each category (and a column for the total amount of money in the account), adding or subtracting as you deposit or withdraw money to the account. To the bank it will be just one (physical) account, but to you, it can be any number of (accounting asset) accounts. You can choose to keep a history, or not. It's all up to how complex you want to make it. It doesn't even have to be a spreadsheet - you can just as well do this on paper if you prefer that. But the computer makes it easier. I imagine most personal finance software will help you, too; I know GnuCash can be coaxed into doing this with only a bit of creativity, and it almost certainly isn't the only one. I do this myself and it works very well. I don't know but imagine that companies do it all the time: there is no reason why there must be a one-to-one relationship between bank accounts and accounting asset accounts, and in fact, doing so would probably quickly become impractical.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d30eb1d846cb2dccc6062df19744ad0", "text": "\"As long as you are disciplined about it, you can certainly have your emergency fund and other savings funds in one account. Multiple accounts may incur added costs, since you may not have the minimum balances to avoid the fees. Some banks provide tools or account features to help track separate \"\"buckets\"\" of funds within one account. One important principle for an emergency fund is liquidity. Those funds should be easily accessible, ideally without withdrawal penalties or transaction costs. For this reason, certificates of deposit (CD) or money market funds should be avoided for this purpose. Another important principle, for any savings fund, is capital preservation/safety. That money should not be held in risky assets. Depending on the purpose of the fund, you may consider other options beyond just a savings account. For example, you may consider placing funds for a house in CD(s) early on, before you are actually looking for the house. As you get closer to having enough for a down payment, you would shift that money into a savings account. One drawback of such an approach is the extra management that this requires on your part. A spreadsheet is a simple way to track these funds, though that requires more manual management and discipline to do that tracking. It also requires some knowledge of spreadsheets, but it provides you with flexibility so you can create a process that works well for you. Any accounting software should allow you to do this in some fashion with (hopefully) less effort than maintaining a spreadsheet, though you may have to do things in a certain way that may be awkward in some cases. Those are the basic principles that come to mind. I am sure others can provide more specific suggestions, like banks which allow you track buckets of funds or accounting software that can help you track the funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "785dfcde9313891b41c7a84d465d469b", "text": "I feel there are two types of answer: One: the financial. Suck all the emotion out of the situation, and treat the two individuals as individuals. If that works for the two of you, fantastic. Two: the philosophical. You're married, it's a union, so unify the funds. If that works for you, fantastic. Personally, my partner and I do the latter. The idea of separate pots and separate accounts and one mixed fund etc makes no sense to us. But that's us. The first step for you in deciding on an approach is to know yourselves as people - and everything else will follow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d5e4e1d4f9c4dd063b662a9cce9501c", "text": "\"If you ask ten different couples what they do, depending on a variety of factors, you'll get anywhere between two and ten different answers. One personal finance blogger that I read swears by the fact that he and his wife keep their finances totally separate. His wife has her own retirement account, he has his. His wife has her own checking and savings, he has his. They pay fifty-fifty for expenses and each buy their own \"\"toys\"\" from their own accounts. He views this as valuable for allowing them to have their own personal finance styles, as his wife is a very conservative investor and he is more generous. My spouse and I have mostly combined finances, and view all of our money as joint (even though there are a smattering of accounts between us with just one name on them as holdovers from before we were married). Almost all of our purchasing decisions except regular groceries are joint. I couldn't imagine it any other way. It leaves us both comfortable with our financial situation and forces us to be on the same page with regards to our lifestyle decisions. There's also the ideological view that since we believe marriage united us, we try to live that out. That's just us, though. We don't want to force it on others. Some couples find a balance between joint accounts and his and her fun money stashes. You might find yet another arrangement that works for you, such as the one you already described. What's going to be important is that you realize that all couples have the same six basic arguments, finances being one of them. The trick is in how you disagree. If you can respectfully and thoughtfully discuss your finances together to find the way that has the least friction for you, you're doing well. Some amount of friction is not just normal, it's almost guaranteed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c9f527a4656e983d5cff2f0a7cea0c2", "text": "A technique that is working pretty well for me: Hide the money from myself: I have two bank accounts at different banks. Let's call them A and B. I asked my employer to send my salary into account A. Furthermore I have configured an automatic transfer of money from account A to account B on the first of each month. I only use account B for all my expenses (rent, credit card, food, etc) and I check its statement quite often. Since the monthly transfer is only 80% of my salary I save money each month in account A. I don't have a credit card attached to the savings account and I almost never look at its statement. Since that money is out of sight, I do not think much about it and I do not think that I could spend it. I know it is a cheap trick, but it works pretty well for me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ecad338e1109d173bd965ba1f489795", "text": "\"What I've found works best when working on my personal budget is to track my income and spending two different ways: bank accounts and budget categories. Here is what I mean: When I deposit my paycheck, I do two things with it: It goes into my checking account, so the balance of my checking account goes up by the amount of my paycheck. I also \"\"deposit\"\" the money from my checking account into my various budget category balances. This is separate from my bank account balances. Some of my paycheck money goes into my groceries category, some goes into clothing, some into car fuel, entertainment, mortgage, phone, etc. Some goes into longer range bills that only happen once or twice a year, such as car insurance, life insurance, property tax, etc. Some goes into savings goals of ours, such as car replacement, vacation, furniture, etc. Every dollar that we have in a bank account or in cash in our wallets is also accounted for in a budget category. If you add up the balances of our bank accounts and cash, and you add up the balances of our budget categories, they add up to the same number. When we make a purchase, this also gets accounted for twice: The appropriate bank account (or cash wallet) balance gets reduced by the purchase amount. The appropriate budget category gets reduced by the purchase amount. In this way, we don't really need to worry about having separate bank accounts for different purposes. We don't need to put our savings goal money in a separate bank account from our grocery money, if we don't want to. The budget category accounting keeps track of how much money is allocated to each purpose. Now, the budget category amounts are not spent yet; the money in them is still in our bank account, and we can move money around in the categories, if we change our mind on how to allocate them. For example, if we don't spend all of our gas money for the month, we can either keep that money in the gas category, or we can move it to a different category, such as the car replacement category or the vacation category. If the phone bill is more than we expect, we can move money around from a different category to cover it. Now, back to your question: We allocate some money from each paycheck into our furniture category. But the money is not really spent until we actually buy some furniture. When we do, the furniture category balance and bank account balance both go down by the amount of the purchase. All of this can be kept track of on the computer in a spreadsheet. However, it's not easy to keep track of so many categories and bank balances. An easier solution is custom budgeting software designed for this purpose. I use and recommend YNAB.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "effc766ab2ff7ff0d8f339d421412be5", "text": "But is the money saved taxable? Not sure I understand the Question. If say you have salary of Rs 5 Lacs, after paying taxes and expenses, lets say you save Rs 1 lacs. If you keep this 1 lacs in savings account. You will get interest. If this interest is less than Rs 10,000/- it is not taxable. If it is more that Rs 10,000 then the additional amount is taxable. i.e. if you get a savings bank interest of Rs 15,000/- the difference Rs 15,000 minus Rs 10,000; i.e. Rs 5000 is taxable. Note if you keep the 1 lacs in Fixed Deposits, then all interest even if you get Rs 1 is taxable. Edit: If you invest the Rs 1 lacs in Tax Saving FD [lock-in period of 6 years], then Yes. You can claim deduction under section 80C.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41f0b1acb57b7544bd49bad2965c8fb9", "text": "\"Should is a very \"\"strong\"\" word. You do what makes most sense to you. Should I be making a single account for Person and crediting / debiting that account? You can do that. Should I be creating a loan for Person? And if so, would I make a new loan each month or would I keep all of the loans in one account? You can create a loan account (your asset), you don't need to create a new account every time - just change the balance of the existing one. That's essentially the implementation of the first way (\"\"making a single account for a Person\"\"). How do I show the money moving from my checking account to Company and then to Person's loan? You make the payment to Company from your Checking, and you adjust the loan amount to Person from Equity for the same amount. When the Person pays - you clear the loan balance and adjust the Checking balance accordingly. This keeps your balance intact for the whole time (i.e.: your total balance sheet doesn't change, money moves from line to line internally but the totals remain the same). This is the proper trail you're looking for. How do I (or should I even) show the money being reimbursed from the expense? You shouldn't. Company is your expense. Payment by the Person is your income. They net out to zero (unless you charge interest). Do I debit the expense at any point? Of course. Company is your expense account. Should I not concern myself with the source of a loan / repayment and instead just increase the size of the loan? Yes. See above.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2d3bd109720544f604955e63246b380", "text": "Having separate savings account for your kids college fund, retirement fund, holiday fund etc is one way to compartmentalise savings. Downside to this is the management of these funds especially if you have them with different banks. Like others here have pointed out, keeping track via spreadsheet is relatively easy and especially most banks now like OCBC, HSBC , DBS, POSB etc offer online banking, however from a financial standpoint, spreading your funds doesn't allow you to get as much interest as you would from one account that has the highest interest rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad2b983f9544f2d6e14dae0788a9a541", "text": "Nope sorry guest you are wrong. how can salary and an expense be on the same side of the ledger? Salary 2000 Personal bank 2000 Phone expenses 30 Personal bank 30", "title": "" }, { "docid": "592ad3963c42c459197267cc2ced76b4", "text": "I keep several savings accounts. I use an online-only bank that makes it very easy to open a new account in about 2 minutes. I keep the following accounts: Emergency Fund with 2 months of expenses. I pretend this money doesn't even exist. But if something happened that I needed money right away, I can get it. 6 6-month term CDs, with one maturing every month, each with 1 month's worth of expenses. This way, every month, I'll have a CD that matures with the money I would need that month if I lose my job or some other emergency that prevents me from working. You won't make as much interest on the 6-month term, but you'll have cash every month if you need it. Goal-specific accounts: I keep an account that I make a 'car payment' into every month so I'll have a down-payment saved when I'm ready to buy a car, and I'm used to making a payment, so it's not an additional expense if I need a loan. I also keep a vacation account so when it's time to take the family to Disneyland, I know how much I can budget for the trip. General savings: The 'everything else' account. When I just NEED to buy a new LCD TV on Black Friday, that's where I go without touching my emergency funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c51982782aa3d8d08ddcc69360b72bf1", "text": "Keeping your “big emergency” fund in stocks if you have 12 months income saved is OK. However you should keep your “small emergency” fund in cash. (However I find that even my stock broker accounts have some cash in them, as I like to let the dividends build up enough to make the dealing charges worthwhile. You don’t wish to be forced to sell at a bad time due to your boiler needing replacing or your car breaking down. However if you lost your job in the same week that your boiler broke down and your car needed replacing then being forced to sell stocks at a bad time is not much of an issue. Also if you are saving say 1/3 of your income each month and you have a credit card with large unused credit limit that is paid of each month, then most “small emergency” that are under 2/3 of your monthly income can be covered on the credit card with little or no interest charges. One option is to check you bank balance on the day after you are paid, and if it is more than 2x your monthly income, then move some of it to long term savings, but only if you tend to spend a lot less then you earn most months.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a96d94c22d193385c82351f53d90af2a", "text": "\"Your return from a bond fund corresponds to the return on the underlying bonds (minus fees) during your holding period. So you can buy AND sell at any time. Some funds charge a penalty of 2% or whatever if you sell your fund shares within 30 or 60 days of buying it. There are two basic ways to profit from a bond fund. 1) you get dividends from the interest paid on the bonds. 2) you have a capital gain (or loss) on the bonds themselves. 1) is likely to happen. MOST (not all) bonds pay interest on time, and on a regular basis. This component of returns is ALMOST guaranteed. 2) There are no guarantees on what the \"\"market\"\" will pay for bonds at any given time, so this component of bonds is NOT AT ALL guaranteed. Your \"\"total return is the sum of 1) and 2) (minus fees). Since 2) is uncertain, your \"\"total return\"\" is uncertain.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae270d438e7134b175f2760f7b057c75", "text": "\"Yeah, exactly. The difference is that Ferrari is making money. EDIT: to clarify... - Ferrari sells a niche product to a boutique customer-base willing to pay a premium in terms of both price and purchasing difficulty for exclusive, super-premium cars that are manufactured to artisan standards with little or no regard for cost-efficiency or price-to-value ratio, etc. People buying Ferrari are not looking for a \"\"sensible deal\"\", they are people who can afford to pay for something special, rare, and uncompromising. Tesla is in a similar market-position. - Ferrari actually makes money selling their cars. They do a low-volume boutique business, and charge prices that reflect a low volume of artisan-made specialty product. I am sure that certain special-order customers have to wait some time for delivery, but I drive by a Ferrari dealership every day on my way to work that has maybe 50 Ferraris sitting in a lot, that you can drive off with same-day, if you want. You can literally drive up, test-drive, and buy one tomorrow (if you have the scratch). OTOH... - Teslas are cheaper than Ferraris, but they are still deep into the super-premium price category. They are well outside the \"\"value-proposition\"\" customer-base. They are also (perhaps even more than Ferrari), in a market segment without meaningful competition. There are several super-premium 2-seaters in the $100-200k price range, but I suspect most Tesla shoppers are not mostly comparing them against Porsches or Vipers or Benzes. The all-electric supercar market is not a highly competitive one. - There is massive demand for Teslas, as is evidenced by the extremely thin used market, the year-plus-long wait list, and all that in the face of extremely customer-unfriendly sales/distribution and almost zero marketing... That is, people are waiting up in 18-month long lines to buy cars that they can't inspect at a local dealership, have no way to test-drive, and often have never even seen in person, and they are putting down cash deposits to do so, in amounts that could buy some pretty nice sports cars for the deposit alone. Moreover, it's not like Tesla buyers are going to change their minds and get a Chevy Volt or Honda Insight instead (although they might get both). This is any startups wet-dream: - You have a product that is not only already in production, but that you have been shipping for several years-- you know the tooling, manufacturing, support, and delivery costs, because you have actually been doing it for years. - You not only have no issues whatsoever with regards to building a customer-base, you already have paying customers and genuine orders already booked through 2014, more than you can keep up with. - You have a product with massive demand and almost non-existent price-pressure. You've got orders booked over a year out at asking price with virtually zero marketing or advertising, most customers buying site-unseen purely based on concept and reputation, and your customers are paying super-premium prices with no direct competitor alternative. This is a goldmine. This is the kind of thing that business-school textbooks tell you never happens. Rational-market theory says it's impossible to have a big-ticket product offering with essentially unlimited demand and zero meaningful competition. Moreover, this is happening in an environment where the business is not only receiving direct gov't subsidies, but where borrowing costs are close to negative in real dollars. A going concern with booked orders and guaranteed revenue through 2014 should, if anything, be borrowing from banks to buy back equity, not selling equity to raise capital. If Tesla needs to raise capital, then something is seriously wrong with the underlying business. As in, wrong enough that its current sales are not only un-profitable, but that currently-booked future sales will continue to be un-profitable for the foreseeable future (otherwise they could just borrow). You can plead \"\"startup\"\" when you have a small customer base but a great concept. You can plead \"\"startup\"\" when you first start shipping product in small quantities at low prices. But you can't plead \"\"startup\"\" when you have been shipping a product for years, and when you have customer-orders booked years out, at full asking price, with no meaningful price or product-competition.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
869e5dbdc1d59507ee05b22fc76fdce3	Credit report - Not able to establish identity	[ { "docid": "cb1fd3a0c03428e290c54730500a1154", "text": "It looks like from their response, they would like you to send a copy of your social security card. Your drivers license or passport will not help verify your social security number. Another option you could try is to get your credit report from one of the other credit bureaus. You should be able to choose from Experian, Trans Union, and Equifax all on annualcreditreport.gov", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b8195df62e76c4eb1f803bb4033c356", "text": "I suggest you begin by double checking what kinds of credit products you have and to which credit bureaus your bank reports. Not all financial institutions report to all bureaus. For example, if your bank only reports your one and only line of credit to Experian, TransUnion still won't have a file on you. Also, some lines of credit such as being an authorized user on a credit card aren't tracked by all of the bureaus. The other thing to consider is the amount of time that your lines of credit have been open. You said it's been less than one year but if it's been less than six months you might try waiting six months to try requesting your reports. If none of the above solves your problem, I would respond to their letter exactly as they instruct you to. Send everything certified with return receipt, and get into the habit of saving all of these records. When you send your reply be sure to include all of the requested information, a brief summary of your issue, and a reference to their previous letter to you. If they don't respond to your letter or they aren't able to help you, try calling the credit bureaus directly to inquire about the problem. Usually the consumer phone lines are automated, so try the corporate or business contacts they list on their website. On a final note, never submit your information on any of the bureaus websites. By doing so you agree to binding arbitration agreements which limit your right to sue. Only communicate with the bureaus by mail or on rare occasions phone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0431fb5aa87250212e86062c179f49d", "text": "The suggestion may be very delayed, have you personally gone to the Experian Office with all the documentation (in xerox copy and in original)? If not, please do so, there is always a difference between dealing with govt/semi-govt institutions over electronic channels and in person.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1d6a0684c5d2fd9d65960fd64b8dac44", "text": "It appears all you have to do is submit a form. It might be better if she submitted it herself instead of you doing it on her behalf. All natural persons (individuals) and non-natural persons (businesses) are entitled to access and inspect the data held on record about them in the Central Credit Information System (KHR).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "547b35de15d840aa2245a1a2679afcbe", "text": "This can be a case of someone trying to use your identity to obtain credit. I would put a fraud alert on my credit immediately. I went through something similar... got denial letters for credit I didn't apply to. A few months later I get hit with a credit ding from a pay day loan company that apparently allowed the thief to get a loan who obviously didn't pay it back. I had no contact with this company before they put the lates on my credit and it took over a year to get this cleaned up. Apparently this loan was obtained about a week after I got the first denial letter so if I put a fraud alert on immediately it would have most likely stopped this fraudulent pay day loan before it happened.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "daa5dd379131b614b18d527b58726143", "text": "\"You can't get your credit score for free, just the report with the information the score is based on. If you got credit reports through annualcreditreport.com, the Score tab would typically contain an advertisement for purchasing your score. If you have an ad-blocker enabled, that might be blocked, explaining the blank page. Try turning off any browser extensions that alter how pages are shown. The accounts page/tab/section should show something like \"\"0 open accounts\"\" or similar, to indicate that it is loading data. Your lack of credit history probably does mean you don't have a credit score, so it's probably not worth paying anything to find that out. The focus should be on the accuracy of the underlying report, since you can do something about that. Should I be worried? I'd say no on that. You'll have an easier time getting credit (and better terms) in the future if you start now with some account, even if it's a secured credit card you don't use much, because the age of the oldest and average accounts are factors in credit scoring models.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeb7425f51f2b1f15cd21cbf07718170", "text": "I believe the answer is that to protect yourself it is good to get credit protection so you will be notified when new credit is taken in your name. Also, you can use http://www.annualcreditreport.com/ to look at your credit report. HINT: While you do that, and while you are in the TransUnion report, you will have the option to DISPUTE adverse items. I always suggest that people dispute everything adverse. That puts the onus on the other parties to produce evidence to TransUnion within 30 days attesting to the validity of the adverse item. You would be surprised how many will simply drop off your report after doing that. Everybody should do this Here is a direct address for TransUnion: https://dispute.transunion.com/dp/dispute/landingPage.jsp ==> Once the disputes are finalized, the results get communicated to the other two bureaus. It is amazing how well it works. It can raise your credit score significantly. It really helps to watch your credit report yourself, and also to get whatever protection is offered that may help protect you against others opening new accounts in your name.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d5daf9cc17e40cfa669930d0cc5de79", "text": "Request verification in writing of the debt. They are required to provide this by law. Keep this for your records. Send them a notice by certified mail stating that this is not your debt and not to contact you again. Indicate that you will take legal action if they continue to try and collect. Keep a log of if/when they continue to call or harass you. Contact counsel about your rights under the fair debt collection laws, but if they keep harassing you after being provided proof of your identity, they are liable. You could win a judgement in court if you have proof of bad behavior. If your identity is stolen, you are not legally responsible for the charges. However it is a mess to clean up, so pull your credit reports and review your accounts to be sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa9d259510819cd62f0e479e8728860b", "text": "\"You say your primary goal is to clean up your credit report, and you're willing to spend some cash to do it. OK. But beware: the law in this area is a funhouse mirror, everything works upside down and backwards. To start, let's be clear: Credit reports are not extortion to force you into paying. They are a historical record of your creditworthiness, and almost impossible to fix without altering history. Paying on this debt will affirm the old data was correct, and glue it to your report. Here's how credit reporting works for R-9 (sent to collections) amounts. The data is on your credit report for 7 years. The danger is in this clock being restarted. What will not restart the clock? Ignoring the debt, talking casusally to collectors, and the debt being sold from one collector to another. What will restart the clock? Acknowledging the debt formally, court judgment, paying the debt, or paying on the debt (obviously, paying acknowledges the debt.) Crazy! You could have a debt that's over 7 years old, pay it because you're a decent person, and BOOM! Clock restarts and 7 more years of bad luck. Even worse-- if they write-off or forgive any part of the debt, that's income and you'll need to pay income tax on it. Ugh! Like I say, the only way to remove a bad mark is to alter history. Simple fact: The collector doesn't care about your bad credit mark; he wants money. And it costs a lot of money, time and/or stress for both of you to demand they research it, negotiate, play phone-tag, and ultimately go to court. So this works very well (this is just the guts, you have to add all the who, what, where, signature block, formalities etc.): 1 Company and Customer absolutely disagree as to whether Customer owes Company this debt: (explicitly named debt with numbers and amount) 2 But Company and Customer both eagerly agree that the expense, time, and stress of research, negotiation, and litigation is burdensome for both of us. We both strongly desire a quick, final and no-fault solution. Therefore: 3 Parties agree Customer shall pay Company (acceptable fraction here). Payment within 30 days. To be acknowledged in writing by Company. 4 This shall be absolute and final resolution. 5 NO-FAULT. Parties agree this settlement resolves the matter in good faith. Parties agree this settlement is done for practical reasons, this bill has not been established as a valid debt, and any difference between billed and settled amount is not a canceled nor forgiven debt. 6 Neither party nor its assigns will make any adverse statements to third parties relating to this bill or agreement. Parties agree they have a continuous duty to remove adverse statements, and agree to do so within seven days of request. 7 Parties specifically agree no adverse mark nor any mark of any kind shall be placed on Customer's credit report; and in the event such a mark appears, Parties will disavow it continuously. Parties agree that a good credit report has a monetary value and specific impacts on a customer's life. 8 Jurisdiction of law shall be where the effects are felt, and that shall be (place of service) regarding the amounts of the bill proper. Severable, inseparable, counterparts, witness, signature lines blah blah. A collector is gonna sign this because it's free money and it's not tricky. What does this do? 1, 2 and 5 alter history to make the debt never have existed in the first place. To do this, it must formally answer the question of why the heck would you pay a debt that isn't real and you don't owe: out of sheer practicality; it's cheaper than Rogaine. This is your \"\"get out of jail free\"\" card both with the credit bureaus and the IRS. Of course, 3 gives the creditor motivation to go along with it. 6 says they can't burn your credit. 7 says it again and they're agreeing you can sue for cash money. 8 lets you pick the court. The collector won't get hung up on any of these since he can easily remove the bad mark. (don't be mad that they won't do it \"\"for free\"\", that's what 3 is for.) The key to getting them to take a settlement is to be reasonable and fair. Make sure the agreement works for them too. 6 says you can't badmouth them on social media. 4 and 5 says it can't be used against them. 8 throws them a bone by letting them sue in their home court for the bill they just settled (a right they already had). If it's medical, add \"\"HIPAA does not apply to this document\"\" to save them a ton of paperwork. Make it easy for them. You want the collector to take it to his boss and say \"\"this is pretty good. Do it.\"\" Don't send the money until their signed copy is in your hands. Then send promptly with an SASE for the receipt. Make it easy for them. This is on you. As far as \"\"getting them to send you an offer\"\", creditors are reluctant to mail things especially to people they don't think will pay, because it costs them money to write and send. So you may need to be proactive about running them down with your offer. Like I say, it's a funhouse mirror.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a4c992ed6dc741496581a54d8651f19", "text": "\"http://annualcreditreport.com gives you free access to your 3 credit bureau records. (Annual, not \"\"free\"\". The \"\"free\"\" guys will try to sell you something.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22ee74f1aa2b5b26d759731c67d0ae55", "text": "\"Social security number should only be needed for things that involve tax withholding or tax payment. Your bank or investment broker, and your employer, need it so they can report your earnings. You need it when filing tax forms. Other than those, nobody should really be asking you for it. The gym had absolutely no good reason to ask and won't have done anything with the number. I think we can ignore that one. The store cards are a bigger problem. Depending on exactly what was done with the data, you may have been messing up the credit record of whoever legitimately had that number... and if so you might be liable on fraud charges if they or the store figure out what happened and come after you. But that's unrelated to the fact that you have a legitimate SSN now. Basically, you really don't want to open this can of worms. And I hope you're posting from a disposable user ID and not using your real name... (As I noted in a comment, the other choice would be to contact the authorities (I'm not actually sure which bureau/department would be best), say \"\"I was young, foolish, and confused by America's process... do I need to do anything to correct this?\"\", and see what happens... but it might be wise to get a lawyer's advice on whether that's a good idea, a bad idea, or simply unnecessary.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f2d8886596aed5014f033bcd1033c28", "text": "\"Following @Brick's advice, I am posting this as an answer so it \"\"stands apart from the question\"\", but all the credit goes to @TTT, whose instructions I followed. I was able to get this collection completely deleted/removed from the 2 bureaus that were reporting it, using only the online dispute process. Of course, your mileage may vary, but here's some more details, that may be helpful to others. Equifax: Success! 3 weeks after disputing the collection using the online dispute process, and uploading my (scanned) \"\"final account statement\"\" to show that I paid the apartment complex, I received an email confirmation that it is deleted. (I had to go to a webpage to get the actual result.) TransUnion: Success! Although I never heard back from TU, my CreditKarma account now shows that the collection is no longer on my TU report either. I am not sure if this is because Equifax deleted it and TU just followed suit, or if TU did their own investigation (ideas, comments? could help others). Their online dispute process bugged out and didn't accept my upload, so they would have had to contact the apartment complex, so I was supposed to receive something by mail. I still haven't, but it's definitely gone from my report. Experian: It didn't show up on this report, so I can't give any feedback. I suppose it's also worth noting that I did not ever have any contact with the Collections Agency. I did visit the apartment office, in person, in order to get a copy of my final statement. While there, I spoke with the (new) manager, who said she would try to reach up the chain of command to figure something out. I'm not sure how much difference, if any, this may have made, as the complex is now owned by an entirely different company. In fact, the new manager had no idea who the old management company was, much less which collections agency they used. Also worth noting: Removing the collection made my score rise from 623 to 701! I know because, after getting the collection removed from my report, I re-applied for the auto loan I had been denied 3 weeks prior, and they gave me my Equifax score both times.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66b35acf56e4b858179a6a2252a75163", "text": "\"I was I a similar position as you, and sometimes credit bureaus might be difficult to deal with, especially when high amounts of money are involved. To make the long story short, someone opened a store credit card under my name and made a charge of around 3k. After reporting this to the bureaus, they did not want to remove the account from my credit report citing that the claim was \"\"frivolous\"\". After filing a police report, the police officer gave me the phone number for the fraud department of this store credit card, and after they investigated, they removed the account from my credit. I would suggest to do the following: Communicating with Creditors and Debt Collectors You have the right to: Stop creditors and debt collectors from reporting fraudulent accounts. After you give them a copy of a valid identity theft report, they may not report fraudulent accounts to the credit reporting companies. Get copies of documents related to the theft of your identity, like transaction records or applications for new accounts. Write to the company that has the documents, and include a copy of your identity theft report. You also can tell the company to give the documents to a specific law enforcement agency. Stop a debt collector from contacting you. In most cases, debt collectors must stop contacting you after you send them a letter telling them to stop. Get written information from a debt collector about a debt, including the name of the creditor and the amount you supposedly owe. If a debt collector contacts you about a debt, request this information in writing. I know that you said that the main problem was that your credit account was combined with another. But there might be a chance that identity theft was involved. If this is the case, and you can prove it, then you might have access to more tools to help you. For example, you can file a report with the FTC, and along with a police report, this can be a powerful tool in stopping these charges. Feel free to go to the identitytheft.gov website for more information.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d56dbb5e771bdfe090ee29cda515f94c", "text": "Are you currently trapped under the type of attractiveness to a lender,? Take action to improve your current conditions. One of the ways that you could re-establish your credit rating would be to advantageous all of your obligations quickly. The very best on the internet poor credit financial loans businesses are frequently certified through the condition.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1f1bd2ee9a6d2caf9bfec545571ff8c", "text": "I came to US as an international student several years ago, and I have also experienced the same situation like most of the international students in finding ways to build credit history. Below I list out some possible approaches you may want to consider: I. Get a student job at campus (recommended) I think the best way is to get a student job in university, say a teaching assistant or student helper. In this case, you can be provided with a social security number and start to build your own credit history. II. Get credit card You can also consider to apply for a credit card. There are indeed some financial institutions that can provide credit cards for international students with no or limited credit scores requirement, say Discover and Bank of America. However, it is relatively hard to get approved, simply because hey may put more restriction in other aspects. For example, you may be required to keep sufficient bank balance above several thousand dollars during a period of time, or you should prove that you have relatives with citizenship in US who can provide your financial aid if needed. III. Apply for a loan (recommended) Getting a loan product is another alternative to get out of this difficult situation, but most of people don’t realize that. There are some FinTech start-ups in United States that specifically focus on international students’ loan financing. One representative example is Westbon (Westbon ), an online lending company that specializes in providing car loan for international students with no SSN or credit history. I once used their loan product to finance a Honda Accord, and Westbon reported my loan transaction records to US credit bureau during my repayment process. Later when I officially got my SSN number, I found my credit history has been automatically synchronized and I don’t have to start from all over again. It never be an easy journey for international students to build credit history in United States. What approach you should make really depends on you own situation. I hope the information above can be useful and good luck for your credit journey!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87201af6685b597d3ff47bfff8ea40fd", "text": "It sounds like your father got a loan and you are making the payments. If your name and SSN are not on the loan then you are not getting credit for making the payments your father is. So it will not affect your credit. If you are on the loan as a secondary borrower it will affect your credit but not substantially on the positive but could affect it substantially on the negative side. Since your father is named as the primary borrower you will probably need to talk with him about it first. If this is a mistake the 2 of you will need to work together with the bank to get it corrected. Since your father is currently listed first the bank is probably going to be unable(even if they are willing) to make a change to the loan now with out his explicit permission. In addition if the loan is in your fathers name, if it is a vehicle loan, then the car is most likely in your fathers name as well. Most states require that the primary signatory on a vehicle loan also be the primary owner on the title to the vehicle. If your fathers name is the primary name on the title then you would have to retitle the car to refinance in your name.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c862ffa8adba84464ca1c38d3b51cec4", "text": "Yes, there is. I was a victim of Experian's breach last year. The only thing these credit reporting agencies sell is their opinion. If their opinion is not worth shit because they are compromised, then what they sell has little value. Next time you hear a lender explaining to you this credit score thingy, ask them if they still remember how to underwrite without it, because it is going away. They will look at you and try to carefully explain its importance, but you are under no obligation to believe them. Tell them COBOL sucks, and so does much of the '80s music they still listen to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71c5d6bcf38f61d6e21be33a3a5e1dd3", "text": "Sorry. As far as I know, a person's SS is the only way to establish credit. This is the first thing they ask whenever you apply for any service in the US.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
093df415bdd4f8b4556dcf817cbaf380	New company doesn't allow 401k deposits for 6 months, what to do with money I used to deposit?	[ { "docid": "101e9f4c5f376e89b21b8073d6d9d752", "text": "$9000 over 6 months is great, I'd use it for long term savings regardless of the 401(k) situation. There's nothing wrong with a mix of pre and post tax money for retirement. In fact, it's a great way to avoid paying too much tax should your 401(k) withdrawals in retirement push you into a higher bracket. Just invest this as you would your other long term money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "789d3dcae90ef6d21ef686157bc50cf5", "text": "I would open a taxable account with the same custodian that manages your Roth IRA (e.g., Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.). Then within the taxable account I would invest the extra money in low cost, broad market index funds that are tax efficient. Unlike in your 401(k) and Roth IRA, you will now have tax implications if your funds produce dividends or realize a capital gain. That is why tax-efficient funds are important to minimize this as much as possible. The 3-fund portfolio is a popular choice for taxable accounts because of simplicity and the tax efficiency of broad market index funds that are part of the three fund portfolio. The 3-fund portfolio normally consists of Depending on your tax bracket you may want to consider municipal bonds in your taxable instead of taxable bonds if your tax bracket is 25% or higher. Another option is to forgo bonds altogether in the taxable account and just hold bonds in retirement accounts while keeping tax efficient domestic and international tock funds in your taxable account. Then adjust the bond portion upward in your retirement accounts to account for the additional stocks in your taxable accounts. This will maintain the asset allocation that you've already chosen that is appropriate for your age and goals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32f8ed7f56090d35f8e7317aa23eaf3f", "text": "\"Bit hesitant to put this in an answer as I don't know if specific investment advice is appropriate, but this has grown way too long for a comment. The typical answer given for people who don't have the time, experience, knowledge or inclination to pick specific stocks to hold should instead invest in ETFs (exchange-traded index funds.) What these basically do is attempt to simulate a particular market or stock exchange. An S&P 500 index fund will (generally) attempt to hold shares in the stocks that make up that index. They only have to follow an index, not try to beat it so are called \"\"passively\"\" managed. They have very low expense ratios (far below 1%) and are considered a good choice for investors who want to hold stock without significant effort or expense and who's main goal is time in the market. It's a contentious topic but on average an index (and therefore an index fund) will go even with or outperform most actively managed funds. With a sufficiently long investment horizon, which you have, these may be ideal for you. Trading in ETFs is also typically cheap because they are traded like stock. There are plenty of low-fee online brokers and virtually all will allow trading in ETFs. My broker even has a list of several hundred popular ETFs that can be traded for free. The golden rule in investing is that you should never buy into something you don't understand. Don't buy individual stock with little information: it's often little more than gambling. The same goes for trading platforms like Loyal3. Don't use them unless you know their business model and what they stand to gain from your custom. As mentioned I can trade certain funds for free with my broker, but I know why they can offer that and how they're still making money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24329d0b0b2ea93507a071531632951c", "text": "\"Two options not mentioned: -No information about your emergency fund in your question. If you don't have 6 months of expenses saved up in a \"\"safe\"\" place (high yield savings account or money market fund) I'd add to that first. -Could you auto-withdraw the amount over six months, then when you can start contributing, contribute twice as much so you are still putting in $18,000 a \"\"year\"\"? The amount you pulled into savings the first 6 months could be used to make up for the extra income coming out after the six months are over. Depending on your income, and since you have the ability to save, it's important not to \"\"lose\"\" access to these tax efficient accounts. And also... -After-tax brokerage account (as mentioned above) is also fine. But if you will use this money for downpayment on a home or something similar within the next five years, I wouldn't recommend investing it. However, having money invested in an after-tax account isn't a terrible thing, yes you'll get taxed when you sell the investments but you have a lot of flexibility to access that money at any time, unlike your retirement accounts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6347a4f709beea994927b81af00ec999", "text": "Short answer is fund a Roth. If you are under 50 then you can put in $5500 or $6500 if you are older. Great to have money in two buckets one pre tax and one post tax. Plus you can be aggressive putting money in it because you can always take money you put in the Roth out of the Roth with no tax or penalty. Taxes are historically low so it makes a lot of sense to diversify your retirement.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f55e29b5b419a1fa47ae9f6fc7d40bd7", "text": "Nice idea. When I started my IRAs, I considered this as well, and the answer from the broker was that this was not permitted. And, aside from transfers from other IRAs or retirement accounts, you can't 'deposit' shares to the IRA, only cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf65de14a3d8571ed80e0d14e9da1ca6", "text": "I want to take a loan out against an old 401k to use as the down payment on a house. The problem that I've found is that in order to borrow against the 401k it has to be considered current. I'd like to avoid rolling it over to my current job because then if I quit the entire load has to be repaid within 60 days. I'm specifically wondering if me plan of starting a company with a 401k will work. From what I can tell, there's no limit on the number of current 401ks you can have. Since I'm obviously never going to fire myself, having to suddenly repay the entire loan won't be a problem. I'd like to keep my job and money related to investments separate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61a798b02ff3bca4fead46b2ba7aabaa", "text": "See Started new job. Rollover previous employer 401k to new 401k, IRA or Roth IRA? for a start. Kevin, the discussion is far more complex than you might think. Say your account grows by X, (pretend it's 10 if you wish) and your tax rate is Y (25%?). If you take the initial sum, tax it at Y, but then grow it X, the result is identical to doing it in the reverse order. So $1000 to start can grow to $10,000, then after tax, $7500. Or $1000 taxed to $750, then grow to $7500. For pretax deposits, the key is that you deposit those contributions at your marginal rate, i.e. the rate you'd pay on the last $X taxed. But withdrawals start at zero. In the perfect scenario, you will save 25-28% tax on deposits, but at retirement, enjoy taxation at 0%,10%,15% for a large portion or all of the withdrawals. (Note, others can suggest rates will rise, and they may be right. My answer is based on the current tax structure.) A new earner, at 10 or 15% may be better off starting with Roth, and as they earn their way to 25% or higher slide over to pre-tax deposits. My 14 year old baby sits, and makes enough to fund a Roth, but pays no tax as she earns less than her own standard deduction for what that's worth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba92dda80ec4ee9b2a01658aad4269a3", "text": "\"The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account. The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year. In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the \"\"holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income\"\" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence. Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche \"\"continue to live like a student.\"\" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement. In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly. If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as \"\"retirement\"\" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c86dbe12b704c99fa7e84dffca5bba0", "text": "Conversions must be done during the calendar year. This would apply to both IRA and 401(k) accounts. For IRAs, deposits may be made until 4/15, and the same holds for Solo 401(k) accounts. For conversions, the IRA permits a recharacterization, basically, a do-over, which reverses the conversion, any or all, in case you have any reason it should not have been done. That has a deadline of 10/15, i.e. 4/15 plus 6 month extension. The 401(k) conversion has no such provision. Simple answer 12/31 of the given year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "533a093533faa44e21ed84df4b85c954", "text": "As others mentioned, I am not sure what you mean by stating that your 401K was rolled over to a money market account. Assuming that it was rolled over to an IRA account, you can roll it over to another IRA account with a financial institution of your choice (either a brokerage or a bank.) Alternatively, you can withdraw these funds, but since you are under 59.5 years old, you would have to cough up 10% penalty to IRS for this unqualified withdrawal. Therefore, I would strongly recommend for you to wait till you reach this eligible age. Other qualified (penalty-free) withdrawals are: purchase of the first home, college tuition, medical insurance premiums for unemployed individuals, disability, and medical expenses exceeding 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income. I would assume that your 401K was a Traditional 401K account (before tax contributions), and not ROTH 401K, so yo would also have to pay taxes upon withdrawing funds whether you do it now or after you are 59.5 y.o.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6322e2300547799bdd4f0a0aa7076f2", "text": "\"Checks (in the US, anyway) are only good for six months after they have been written. After that. under the US Uniform Commerical Code they are considered \"\"stale checks\"\" and banks need not accept them. My experience is that they generally won't -- but you probably shouldn't count on that, either when figuring out whether to try depositing an old check or figuring out how much cash you need to keep in your checking account to cover recent stale checks. The check you now hold is certainly a statement of intent to pay you and thus is a useful document to supplement other evidence that they still owe you the money -- but since checks can be cancelled and/or a replacement check may have been issued, its value for that purpose may be limited. You can try depositing it and see what happens. If that doesn't work (or you don't want to bother trying it) you can contact the retirement plan, point out that this check went uncashed, and ask them to send you a replacement. If they haven't already done so (you might want to check your own records for that), there shouldn't be any problem with this. (Note: Many business checks have a statement printed on them that they're only good for 90 days or so. If yours does, you can skip trying to cash it; just contact the retirement plan offices.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7a087bf6054e9cfbb8974156ad1255a", "text": "I rolled mine over from the company I was at into my own brokerage house. You can't roll them into a Roth IRA, so I needed to setup a traditional IRA. There is paperwork your old jobs can provide you. I had to put in some mailing addresses, some account numbers and turn them in. My broker received it, I chose what I wanted to invest it in and that was that. No tax penalty or early withdrawal penalty. The key to avoiding penalties is to have your past employers send the money directly to another retirement fund, not send a check to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93a0b8695c9a5a04a43380ef2899b658", "text": "You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e32eb3044899febf97d41eb6b0bd7dd", "text": "The 60 day pay back rule of a distribution your are referring to is a reportable IRS rule so you won't be able to circumvent that by opening your own company with its own 401K and borrowing the funds from there. Failure to accurately report to the IRS leads to fines and possible jail time. It's not advisable to withdraw from a retirement account but if you really need the money then you can move the funds to a Rollover IRA at the new broker/dealer, or custodian etc. Once you withdraw funds, the plan sponsor has to abide by a mandatory 20% tax withholding on the distribution, you'll be hit with a 10% tax penalty for early withdraw and you'll have to report the distribution as income when you file your personal income taxes. The move from a 401K to a Rollover however is legal and has no tax implications or penalties (besides possible closing fees at the old account) - that is until you decide to withdraw from it assuming you are under age 59 1/2. Regarding your last point, 401Ks are administered by 3rd parties. You wouldn't be opening up any accounts directly with them necessarily. Best advice? Get a Financial Advisor in your area. I recommend going with an advisor who is backed by independent broker-dealer. Independent broker dealers don't offer their own investment products therefore don't push their advisors to sell you their 'in-house' products like big banks. Here's a good article on using Rollover funds to start a venture: http://www.ehow.com/how_6789743_rollover-directed-ira-start-business.html Here is a resource guide direct from the IRS (you can CTRL+F for any specific topics) http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/401%28k%29-Resource-Guide---Plan-Participants---General-Distribution-Rules", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c112237e1af5fe303b2050fcc28fbe6", "text": "\"Your question was about recharacterizing. But then you said \"\"I contributed a few thousand dollars to my 401(k) as Roth contributions\"\" which means you never converted from a 401(k) to a Roth 401(k), the deposit was always Roth. Even if the law changes allowing the recharacterization, it would not apply to your situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1930c68a28a19e4e2979740472fa1ec1", "text": "This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing. I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb94e221d756e5f6d72e01cf92db0b83", "text": "If one makes say, $10K/mo, and the company will match the first 5% dollar for dollar, a 10%/mo deposit of $1K/mo will see a $500/mo match. If the employee manages to request 90% get put into the 401(k), after 2 months, he's done. If the company wished, they could continue the $500/mo match, I agree. They typically don't and in fact, the 'true up' you mention isn't even required, one is fortunate to get it. Many companies that match are going the other way, matching only after the year is over. Why? Why does any company do anything? To save money. I used to make an attempt to divide my deposit over the year to max out the 401(k) in December and get the match real time, not a true up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "542e54fdfbba57b040255579d834efb7", "text": "The question is for your HR department, or administrator of the plan. How long must you hold the employee shares before you are permitted to sell? Loyalty to your company is one thing, but after a time, you will be too heavily invested in one company, and you need to diversify out. One can cite any number they wish, 5%, 10%. All I know is that when Enron blew up, it only added insult to injury that not only did these people lose their job, they lost a huge chunk of their savings as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d7f472ed1f6a12a3d0abd8268ef2fb2", "text": "You generally cant roll funds from a 401k with a company you're still employed with. Some companies allow it depending on the custodial agreement but it's rare. Generally you need to wait until retirement or separation to roll funds out of a 401k.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5661993745d5e0905da258e992938c65	Avoiding Double-Reporting Income (1099-MISC plus 1099-K)	[ { "docid": "843d1c84ec17b539f7167ab34ab5d784", "text": "Your clients should not send you 1099-MISC if they paid with a credit card. You can refer them to this text in the instructions for the form 1099-MISC: Payments made with a credit card or payment card and certain other types of payments, including third party network transactions, must be reported on Form 1099-K by the payment settlement entity under section 6050W and are not subject to reporting on Form 1099-MISC. See the separate Instructions for Form 1099-K. By sending out the 1099-MISC, your clients are essentially saying that they paid you directly (check or cash) in addition to the payment they made with a credit card (which will be reported on 1099-K). In case of an audit, you'll have trouble convincing the IRS that it didn't happen. I suggest asking the clients not to do this to you, since it may cost you significant amounts to fight the IRS later on. In any case, you report on your tax return what you really got, not what the 1099 says. If you have two 1099's covering the same income - there's no legal obligation to report the income twice. You do not have to pay twice the tax just because you have stupid clients. But you may have troubles explaining it to the IRS, especially if you're dealing with cash in your business. If you want to avoid matching issues, consider reporting all the 1099s, and then subtracting the duplicates and attaching a statement (the software will do it automatically when you add the description in the miscellaneous item) about what it is.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "65c68a828b7a4907e8704f5296b345ee", "text": "If you're under audit - you should get a proper representation. I.e.: EA or CPA licensed in California and experienced with the FTB audit representation. There's a penalty on failure to file form 1099, but it is with the IRS, not the FTB. If I remember correctly, it's something like $50 or $100 per instance. Technically they can disqualify deductions claiming you paid under the table and no taxes were paid on the other side, however I doubt they'd do it in a case of simple omission of filing 1099 forms. Check with your licensed tax adviser. Keep in mind that for the IRS 2011 is now closed, since the 3-year statute of limitations has passed. For California the statute is 4 years, and you're almost at the end of it. However since you're already under audit they may ask you to agree to extend it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42491be125040c117b0ed28d837d1b74", "text": "Form 1099-misc reports PAYMENTS, not earnings. This does not imply the EARNINGS are not taxable in the year they were earned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fb392db66de88a0af8f251d21c68b04", "text": "\"IRA distributions are reported on line 15b on the standard form 1040. That is in the same Income section as most of your other income (including that 1099 income and W2 income, etc.). Its income is included in the Line 22 \"\"Total Income\"\", from which the Personal Exemption (calculated on 6d, subtracted from the total in line 42) and the Standard Deduction (line 40 - also Itemized Deduction total would be here) are later reduced to arrive at Line 43, \"\"Taxable Income\"\". As such, yes, he might owe only the 10% penalty (which is reported on line 59, and you do not reduce this by the deductions, as you surmised).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35f09e6454b7f5a6700a7e3e843615d0", "text": "\"This is going to depend on the tax jurisdiction and I have no knowledge of the rules in Illinois. But I'd like to give you some direction about how to think about this. The biggest problem that you might hit is that if you collect a single check and then distribute to the tutors, you may be considered their employer. As an employer, you would be responsible for things like This is not meant as an exhaustive list. Even if not an employer, you are still paying them. You would be responsible for issuing 1099 forms to anyone who goes above $600 for the year (source). You would need to file for a taxpayer identification number for your organization, as it is acting as a business. You need to give this number to the school so that they can issue the correct form to you. You might have to register a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" name. It's conceivable that you could get away with having the school write the check to you as an individual. But if you do that, it will show up as income on your taxes and you will have to deduct payments to the other tutors. If the organization already has a separate tax identity, then you could use that. Note that the organization will be responsible for paying income tax. It should be able to deduct payments to the tutors as well as marketing expenses, etc. If the school will go for it, consider structuring things with a payment to your organization for your organization duties. Then you tell the school how much to pay each tutor. You would be responsible for giving the school the necessary information, like name, address, Social Security number, and cost (or possibly hours worked).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49beb5701fd58d0437b4ff5bea88d312", "text": "I am currently dealing with the same issue of having a 1099 reported to the wrong person. I applied for the square account for my son's business but used my information, which I realized now was a BIG mistake. I did contact Square by email yesterday, which was Saturday, not expecting to hear from them until Monday, or possibly not at all (wasn't hearing a lot of good things about Square's customer service). She was most helpful and while the issue isn't completely taken care of, I do feel better about it. She just had me update the taxpayer information number which then updated the 1099 form.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fd632a34c4689f4fcdbfb85bb386537", "text": "You have to file and issue each one of them a 1099 if you are paying them $600 or more for the year. Because you need to issue a 1099 to them (so they can file their own taxes), I don't think there's a way that you could just combine all of them. Additionally, you may want to make sure that you are properly classifying these people as contractors in case they should be employees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e316d41336ca3bda6eb126bcc4115790", "text": "\"Can I use the foreign earned income exclusion in my situation? Only partially, since the days you spent in the US should be excluded. You'll have to prorate your exclusion limit, and only apply it to the income earned while not in the US. If not, how should I go about this to avoid being doubly taxed for 2014? The amounts you cannot exclude are taxable in the US, and you can use a portion of your Norwegian tax to offset the US tax liability. Use form 1116 for that. Form 1116 with form 2555 on the same return will require some arithmetic exercises, but there are worksheets for that in the instructions. In addition, US-Norwegian treaty may come into play, so check that out. It may help you reduce the tax liability in the US or claim credit on the US taxes in Norway. It seems that Norway has a bilateral tax treaty with the US, that, if I'm reading it correctly, seems to indicate that \"\"visiting researchers to universities\"\" (which really seems like I would qualify as) should not be taxed by either country for the duration of their stay. The relevant portion of the treaty is Article 16. Article 16(2)(b) allows you $5000 exemption for up to a year stay in the US for your salary from the Norwegian school. You will still be taxed in Norway. To claim the treaty benefit you need to attach form 8833 to your tax return, and deduct the appropriate amount on line 21 of your form 1040. However, since you're a US citizen, that article doesn't apply to you (See the \"\"savings clause\"\" in the Article 22). I didn't even give a thought to state taxes; those should only apply to income sourced from the state I lived in, right (AKA $0)? I don't know what State you were in, so hard to say, but yes - the State you were in is the one to tax you. Note that the tax treaty between Norway and the US is between Norway and the Federal government, and doesn't apply to States. So the income you earned while in the US will be taxable by the State you were at, and you'll need to file a \"\"non-resident\"\" return there (if that State has income taxes - not all do).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f31499789d7290c5909610351f06461a", "text": "I can't give you a specific answer because I'm not a tax accountant, so you should seek advice from a tax professional with experience relevant to your situation. This could be a complicated situation. That being said, one place you could start is the Canada Revenue Agency's statement on investment income, which contains this paragraph: Interest, foreign interest and dividend income, foreign income, foreign non-business income, and certain other income are all amounts you report on your return. They are usually shown on the following slips: T5, T3, T5013, T5013A To avoid double taxation, Canada and the US almost certainly have a foreign tax treaty that ensures you are only taxed in your country of residence. I'm assuming you're a resident of Canada. Also, this page states that: If you received foreign interest or dividend income, you have to report it in Canadian dollars. Use the Bank of Canada exchange rate that was in effect on the day you received the income. If you received the income at different times during the year, use the average annual exchange rate. You should consult a tax professional. I'm not a tax professional, let alone one who specializes in the Canadian tax system. A professional is the only one you should trust to answer your question with 100% accuracy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0980ca2d1a7e51b55220dd25da641b4f", "text": "question #2 - yes, 25% of your 1099 income. Good idea. It adds up quickly and is a good way to reduce taxable income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df1e56fb20ac2062c3ea4d7c85015ded", "text": "\"If you're single, the only solution I'm aware of, assuming you are truly getting a 1099-misc and not a W-2 (and don't have a W-2 option available, like TAing), is to save in a nondeductible account for now. Then, when you later do have a job, use that nondeductible account (in part) to fund your retirement accounts. Particularly the first few years (if you're a \"\"young\"\" grad student in particular), you'll probably be low enough on the income side that you can fit this in - in particular if you've got a 401k or 403b plan at work; make your from-salary contributions there, and make deductible IRA or Roth IRA contributions from your in-school savings. If you're not single, or even if you are single but have a child, you have a few other options. Spouses who don't have earned income, but have a spouse who does, can set up a Spousal IRA. You can then, combined, save up to your spouse's total earned income (or the usual per-person maximums). So if you are married and your wife/husband works, you can essentially count his/her earned income towards your earned income. Second, if you have a child, consider setting up a 529 plan for them. You're probably going to want to do this anyway, right? You can even do this for a niece or nephew, if you're feeling generous.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e714ca3f65ef959e2f5a651731a8f4bf", "text": "The GnuCash tutorial has some basics on double entry accounting: http://www.gnucash.org/docs/v1.8/C/gnucash-guide/basics_accounting1.html#basics_accountingdouble2", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d11e107b45fdc610c799bfd97e53ba5", "text": "\"This seems to depend on what kind of corporation you have set up. If you're set up as a sole proprietor, then the Solo 401k contributions, whether employee or employer, will be deducted from your gross income. Thus they don't reduce it. If you're set up as an S-Corp, then the employer contributions, similar to large employer contributions, will be deducted from wages, and won't show up in Box 1 on your W-2, so they would reduce your gross income. (Note, employee contributions also would go away from Box 1, but would still be in Box 3 and 5 for FICA/payroll tax purposes). This is nicely discussed in detail here. The IRS page that discusses this in more (harder to understand) detail is here. Separately, I think a discussion of \"\"Gross Income\"\" is merited, as it has a special definition for sole proprietorships. The IRS defines it in publication 501 as: Gross income. Gross income is all income you receive in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax. If you are married and live with your spouse in a community property state, half of any income defined by state law as community income may be considered yours. For a list of community property states, see Community property states under Married Filing Separately, later. Self-employed persons. If you are self-employed in a business that provides services (where products are not a factor), your gross income from that business is the gross receipts. If you are self-employed in a business involving manufacturing, merchandising, or mining, your gross income from that business is the total sales minus the cost of goods sold. In either case, you must add any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. So I think that regardless of 401(k) contributions, your gross income is your gross receipts (if you're a contractor, it's probably the total listed on your 1099(s)).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0493d4f827147a296d9f105fe8748726", "text": "They might be concerned with having to charge sales tax in California if they have a single employee in California, creating a nexus situation with CA. If that's the case, or even if there is some other issue, you might be able to switch from being a W2 employee to being a 1099 independent contractor. There's a host of additional issues this could cause, but it alleviate the nexus problem (if THAT is the problem). Here's a terrible solution you can bring up, but shouldn't do under any circumstances: offer to set up a mailing address in an allowed State, and give your company plausible deniability with regards to your legal residence. Obviously, this is a terrible idea, but exploring that option with your employer would help you suss out what the actual objection is. Ultimately, anything said here about the reason is just conjecture. You need to talk to the decision maker(s) about the real reason behind the denial. Then you can talk through solutions. Also - don't forget that you can get another job. If you are serious about a future with your girlfriend, you should put that relationship ahead of your current employment comfort and security. If you are willing to walk away from your position, you are in a much better situation to negotiate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e13b682ffb08bdfdfb9f4297d66fb225", "text": "If you want to be safe, only claim deductions for which you have a receipt. This explanation may help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca45fdfb71adf33769492b71c096b555", "text": "There is a shortcut you can use when calculating federal estimated taxes. Some states may allow the same type of estimation, but I know at least one (my own--Illinois) that does not. The shortcut: you can completely base your estimated taxes for this year on last year's tax return and avoid any underpayment penalty. A quick summary can be found here (emphasis mine): If your prior year Adjusted Gross Income was $150,000 or less, then you can avoid a penalty if you pay either 90 percent of this year's income tax liability or 100 percent of your income tax liability from last year (dividing what you paid last year into four quarterly payments). This rule helps if you have a big spike in income one year, say, because you sell an investment for a huge gain or win the lottery. If wage withholding for the year equals the amount of tax you owed in the previous year, then you wouldn't need to pay estimated taxes, no matter how much extra tax you owe on your windfall. Note that this does not mean you will not owe money when you file your return next April; this shortcut ensures that you pay at least the minimum allowed to avoid penalty. You can see this for yourself by filling out the worksheet on form 1040ES. Line 14a is what your expected tax this year will be, based on your estimated income. Line 14b is your total tax from last year, possibly with some other modifications. Line 14c then asks you to take the lesser of the two numbers. So even if your expected tax this year is one million dollars, you can still base your estimated payments on last year's tax.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bb8d16d3c46d5c0c56746815556ee28f	What is a mutual fund?	[ { "docid": "63c887e3ce5fcbdc3b4a2d62eecfd837", "text": "Let's say that you want to invest in the stock market. Choosing and investing in only one stock is risky. You can lower your risk by diversifying, or investing in lots of different stocks. However, you have some problems with this: When you buy stocks directly, you have to buy whole shares, and you don't have enough money to buy even one whole share of all the stocks you want to invest in. You aren't even sure which stocks you should buy. A mutual fund solves both of these problems. You get together with other investors and pool your money together to buy a group of stocks. That way, your investment is diversified in lots of different stocks without having to have enough money to buy whole shares of each one. And the mutual fund has a manager that chooses which stocks the fund will invest in, so you don't have to pick. There are lots of mutual funds to choose from, with as many different objectives as you can imagine. Some invest in large companies, others small; some invest in a certain sector of companies (utilities or health care, for example), some invest in stocks that pay a dividend, others are focused on growth. Some funds don't invest in stocks at all; they might invest in bonds, real estate, or precious metals. Some funds are actively managed, where the manager actively buys and sells different stocks in the fund continuously (and takes a fee for his services), and others simply invest in a list of stocks and rarely buy or sell (these are called index funds). To answer your question, yes, the JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund is a mutual fund. It is an actively-managed stock mutual fund that attempts to invest in growing companies that do business in countries with rapidly developing economies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d7ee3420c962c48e9922a2fe399011b", "text": "The simple answer is: YES, the JP Morgan emerging markets equity fund is a mutual fund. A mutual fund is a pooling of money from investors to invest in stocks and bonds. Investors in mutual funds arrive there in different ways. Some get there via their company 401K, others by an IRA, still others as a taxable account. The fund can be sold by the company directly or through a broker. You can also have a fund of funds. So the investors are other funds. Some investors are only indirect investors. They are owed a pension by a past or current employer, and the pension fund has invested in a mutual fund.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3749bd9223d2080c026d8c67c9ac9201", "text": "\"Translation : Funds managers that use traditionnal methods to select stocks will have less success than those who use artificial intelligence and computer programs to select stocks. Meaning : The use of computer programs and artificial intelligence is THE way to go for hedge fund managers in the future because they give better results. \"\"No man is better than a machine, but no machine is better than a man with a machine.\"\" Alternative article : Hedge-fund firms, Wall Street Journal. A little humour : \"\"Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease.\"\" wrote Nicolas Boileau in 1674.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fabea6350f01303b2b65be7350ad13c9", "text": "Also, when they mean SP500 fund - it means that fund which invests in the top 500 companies in the SP Index, is my understanding correct? Yes that is right. In reality they may not be able to invest in all 500 companies in same proportion, but is reflective of the composition. I wanted to know whether India also has a company similar to Vanguard which offers low cost index funds. Almost all mutual fund companies offer a NIFTY index fund, both as mutual fund as well as ETF. You can search for index fund and see the total assets to find out which is bigger compared to others.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b48f6c8c1f4bcf06e99385b9b00f8cc9", "text": "The price of a share of a mutual fund is its Net Asset Value (nav). Before the payout of dividends and capital gain distribution, the fund was holding both stock shares and cash that resulted from dividends and capital gains. After the payout, a share only holds the stock. Therefore once the cash is paid out the NAV must drop by the same amount as was paid out per share. Thus of course assumes no other activity or valuation changes of the underlying assets. Regular market activity will obscure what the payout does to the NAV.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35c459b8792369297e41681430c55724", "text": "Mutual funds are collections of investments that other people pay to join. It would be simpler to calculate the value of all these investments at one time each day, and then to deem that any purchases or sales happen at that price. The fund diversifies rather than magnifies risk, looking to hold rather than enjoy a quick turnaround. Nobody really needs hourly updated price information for an investment they intend to hold for decades. They quote their prices on a daily basis and you take the daily price. This makes sense for a vehicle that is a balanced collection of many different assets, most of which will have varying prices over the course a day. That makes pricing complicated. This primer explains mutual fund pricing and the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940, which mandates daily price reporting. It also illustrates the complexity: How does the fund pricing process work? Mutual fund pricing is an intensive process that takes place in a short time frame at the end of the day. Generally, a fund’s pricing process begins at the close of the New York Stock Exchange, normally 4 p.m. Eastern time. The fund’s accounting agent, which may be an affiliated entity such as the fund’s adviser, or a third-party servicer such as the fund’s administrator or custodian bank, is usually responsible for calculating the share price. The accounting agent obtains prices for the fund’s securities from pricing services and directly from brokers. Pricing services collect securities prices from exchanges, brokers, and other sources and then transmit them to the fund’s accounting agent. Fund accounting agents internally validate the prices received by subjecting them to various control procedures. For example, depending on the nature and extent of its holdings, a fund may use one or more pricing services to ensure accuracy. Note that under Rule 22c-1 forward pricing, fund shareholders receive the next daily price, not the last daily price. Forward pricing makes sense if you want shareholders to get the most accurate sale or purchase price, but not if you want purchasers and sellers to be able to make precise calculations about gains and losses (how can you be precise if the price won't be known until after you buy or sell?).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00a9f862539eb72f41fbe7097b892ae0", "text": "Ordinary investors who own mutual funds (like vanguard or whatever) are subject to HFT scalping. Mutual funds, pensions, etc are all operating in the markets with HFTs who are front running them for a tiny spread profit. Million of ordinary investors are invested in those funds and therefore are getting charged this spread by the HFTs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "451a1147ad21efe2f898c5a001fd5c8a", "text": "\"This can be answered by looking at the fine print for any prospectus for any stock, bond or mutual fund. It says: \"\"Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.\"\". A mutual fund is a portfolio of common stocks, managed by somebody for a fee. There are many factors that can drive performance of a fund up or down. Here are a few: I'm sure there are many more market influences that I cannot think of that push fund prices up or down. What the fund did last year is not one of them. If it were, making money in the mutual fund market would be as easy as investing in last year's winners and everyone would be doing it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66a992f8c824c3f1a22da60fbff8cbc0", "text": "This edition of News Bites looks at an article by Bob Pozen and Theresa Hamacher, published by the Financial Analysts Journal in December, at a speech by Don Phillips of Morningstar given at the Business & Wealth Management Forum held in October, and at McKinsey & Company’s most recent annual review of the asset management industry. All three discuss factors leading to success in the mutual fund industry.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7281e2011dcf9a28ad110b6fda9ae354", "text": "\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \"\"quant\"\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5521a4a179cffa66f2ce27f3bba39ebd", "text": "\"There are places that call themselves quant funds that are like what you describe, but most are not. \"\"Quant fund\"\" can just about mean anything from \"\"we use computer screens when we read 10-Ks\"\" to \"\"our PhDs write signal processing programs without even knowing what the input data represents, and we run those programs with no manual intervention.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b61ef059affedae539796acc1a0dbf3", "text": "\"There is a lot of interesting information that can be found in a fund's prospectus. I have found it very helpful to read books on the issue, one I just finished was \"\"The Boglehead's Guide to Investing\"\" which speaks mostly on mutual and index funds. Actively managed funds mean that someone is choosing which stocks to buy and which to sell. If they think a stock will be \"\"hot\"\" then they buy it. Research has shown that people cannot predict the stock market, which is why many people suggest index based funds. An index fund generally tracks a group of companies. Example: an index fund of the S&P 500 will try to mimic the returns that the S&P 500 has. Overall, managed funds are more expensive than index funds because the fund manager must be paid to manage it. Also, there is generally more buying and selling so that also increases the tax amount you would owe. What I am planning on doing is opening a Roth IRA with Vanguard, as their funds have incredibly low fees (0.2% on many). One of the most important things you do before you buy is to figure out your target allocation (% of stocks vs % of bonds). Once you figure that out then you can start narrowing down the funds that you wish to invest in.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c976a1f9cf1a5014ba73a9b00bd8da2b", "text": "A mutual fund that purchases bonds is a bond fund. Bond funds are considered to be less risk than a traditional stock mutual fund. The cost of this less risk is that they have earned (on average) less than mutual funds investing in stocks. Sometimes, bonds have different tax consequences than stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fe83ddf6d27545bcef60021d1489080", "text": "\"A \"\"Fund\"\" is generally speaking a collection of similar financial products, which are bundled into a single investment, so that you as an individual can buy a portion of the Fund rather than buying 50 portions of various products. e.g. a \"\"Bond Fund\"\" may be a collection of various corporate bonds that are bundled together. The performance of the Fund would be the aggregate of each individual item. Generally speaking Funds are like pre-packaged \"\"diversification\"\". Rather than take time (and fees) to buy 50 different stocks on the same stock index, you could buy an \"\"Index Fund\"\" which represents the values of all of those stocks. A \"\"Portfolio\"\" is your individual package of investments. ie: the 20k you have in bonds + the 5k you have in shares, + the 50k you have in \"\"Funds\"\" + the 100k rental property you own. You might split the definition further buy saying \"\"My 401(k) portfolio & my taxable portfolio & my real estate portfolio\"\"(etc.), to denote how those items are invested. The implication of \"\"Portfolio\"\" is that you have considered how all of your investments work together; ie: your 5k in stocks is not so risky, because it is only 5k out of your entire 185k portfolio, which includes some low risk bonds and funds. Another way of looking at it, is that a Fund is a special type of Portfolio. That is, a Fund is a portfolio, that someone will sell to someone else (see Daniel's answer below). For example: Imagine you had $5,000 invested in IBM shares, and also had $5,000 invested in Apple shares. Call this your portfolio. But you also want to sell your portfolio, so let's also call it a 'fund'. Then you sell half of your 'fund' to a friend. So your friend (let's call him Maurice) pays you $4,000, to invest in your 'Fund'. Maurice gives you $4k, and in return, you given him a note that says \"\"Maurice owns 40% of atp9's Fund\"\". The following month, IBM pays you $100 in dividends. But, Maurice owns 40% of those dividends. So you give him a cheque for $40 (some funds automatically reinvest dividends for their clients instead of paying them out immediately). Then you sell your Apple shares for $6,000 (a gain of $1,000 since you bought them). But Maurice owns 40% of that 6k, so you give him $2,400 (or perhaps, instead of giving him the money immediately, you reinvest it within the fund, and buy $6k of Microsoft shares). Why would you set up this Fund? Because Maurice will pay you a fee equal to, let's say, 1% of his total investment. Your job is now to invest the money in the Fund, in a way that aligns with what you told Maurice when he signed the contract. ie: maybe it's a tech fund, and you can only invest in big Tech companies. Maybe it's an Index fund, and your investment needs to exactly match a specific portion of the New York Stock Exchange. Maybe it's a bond fund, and you can only invest in corporate bonds. So to reiterate, a portfolio is a collection of investments (think of an artist's portfolio, being a collection of their work). Usually, people refer to their own 'portfolio', of personal investments. A fund is someone's portfolio, that other people can invest in. This allows an individual investor to give some of their decision making over to a Fund manager. In addition to relying on expertise of others, this allows the investor to save on transaction costs, because they can have a well-diversified portfolio (see what I did there?) while only buying into one or a few funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46b129bf40544b2543dc880dfa3a75c0", "text": "A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cd8c165d5a3432ca97e0bc8d9c44877", "text": "The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfc24837add38637dbfd3d31ad3af4d8", "text": "\"Your \"\"money market\"\" is cash or a \"\"sweep account\"\" that your broker is holding for you and on which the broker is paying you interest. The mutual fund is paying you dividends, not interest, even if it is a money-market mutual fund (often bearing a name such as Prime Reserve Fund) or bond mutual fund that is collecting interest on its investments and passing them on to you.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5e6b18204c1ac5b2fdb716d6bce9ca90	Why do people take out life insurance on their children? Should I take out a policy on my child?	[ { "docid": "53565154111376f435af2c4d8b50d458", "text": "As you say life insurance is about covering the loss of income, so unless your child is an actor or musical prodigy or similar and already earning money, there is no income to cover, and in fact you would have less of a financial commitment without a child to provide for. The other angle is that child life insurance is cheap and they'll have lower premiums than an adult. I'll quote the referenced article directly to address that: Another ploy is that children's life insurance is cheap. It is inexpensive compared to adult life insurance because, plain and simply, children rarely die. While the numbers that the sales agent puts together may make children's life insurance sound like a great deal, take the time to run what you'd have if you instead invested the exact same amount used on the insurance fees into a Roth IRA and you'll find the true cost of purchasing this type of life insurance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce36cabdf10f05954d2cfe31dc253790", "text": "Why do people take out life insurance on their children? They do so largely because it's being sold to them. The insurance companies generally push them on the basis that if you have to pay for a funeral and burial, the cost would devastate a family's finances. In some rare instances that might actually be true, but not generally. Should I take out a policy on my child? Generally no. When they sell you a policy they have to dance around a catch-22 - if you have enough money to afford the 'cheap' life insurance, then you have enough money to pay for a funeral and burial that's probably not going to happen. If you don't have enough money to pay those expenses in the rare case that a child does die, then you really can't afford the insurance, even if it's only 'pennies a day for peace of mind.' And why would schools send these home to parents, year-after-year? The schools are paid a commission. It is not much more than a fundraiser for them, just like school pictures. Am I missing something? Yes, in fact, you could be making money hand over fist if you were willing to prey on parental insecurities. Just set up a stand outside the hospital and get parents who are just about to deliver to sign up for your amazing insurance plan in case the tragic occurs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da838010738fa6ced7b4e5325bd2ca59", "text": "\"My parents and I were suckered into buying this kind of thing when I was in high school. The sales people literally told us that it could be used to pay off student loans - they left out the \"\"in the event of your death\"\" part. We knew it was a life insurance policy, but were told that it would \"\"mature\"\" 6 months after graduation from college, and that it would then be disbursed to pay off loans, even if I didn't die. That seemed strange to us, so we explicitly asked several different ways whether it would pay off the loans after graduation, even if I lived, and they just straight up told us, \"\"Yes.\"\" I'm guessing this ploy is still being used. Also, last I checked, student loans are non-transferable in the unfortunate event that your child dies - which means the loan is forgiven anyway - so this whole thing seems like garbage to me, at least in the student loan sense. I would steer clear from this stuff - it's pure snake oil in my experience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "011b7c1db38c0d7bd716771e42adefd9", "text": "\"Adam Davis's answer is pretty good. However, I think he misses something with regard to the costs of a funeral. According to funeralplanning101.com, a traditional funeral can cost upwards of $15,000. Having just planned and paid for a funeral for an adult, I can assure you that this figure is low. I've heard \"\"$10,000 - $30,000\"\", and that seems a reasonable ball-park given my experience. Additionally, grief affects people differently. If your child died, would you be able to continue work afterwards? Most people can, but some people have to take extended leave (generally with no income) because of the emotional impact. Combined, these expenses can easily outstrip the savings for an average family. Almost by definition, insurance is not cost-effective; insurance companies profit by selling it to you, after all. But you may decide that it is appropriate to mitigate your risk by buying insurance. I do not have children and would likely not choose to insure them if I did. Nevertheless, other people may reasonably choose differently.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b23770fcf8b5894bf0f7072f06914db", "text": "\"It's Permanent Insurance, sold as a savings scheme that is a bad deal for most people. The insurance aspect really doesn't mean much to most people. The classic example that's been around for decades is the \"\"Gerber Grow Up Plan\"\". Basically, it's a whole-life policy that accumulates a cash value. The pitch is typically given to grandparents, who kick in $10/mo and end up with a policy that is worth a little more than what was paid in. Why do people do it? Like most permanent life, it's usually an expensive investment choice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8c7c147d3aff7133b59201bcddfcdd5", "text": "\"Sales tactics for permanent insurance policies can get pretty sleazy. Sending home a flier from school is a way for an insurance salesperson to get his/her message out to 800 families without any effort at all, and very little advertising cost (just a ream of paper and some toner). The biggest catchphrases used are the \"\"just pennies per day\"\" and \"\"in case they get (some devastating medical condition) and become uninsurable.\"\" Sure, both are technically true, but are definitely used to trigger the grown ups' insecurities. Having said that (and having been in the financial business for a time, which included selling insurance policies), there is a place for insurance of children. A small amount can be used to offset the loss of income for the parents who may have to take extended time away from work to deal with the event of the loss of their child, and to deal with the costs of funeral and burial. Let's face it, the percentage of families who have a sufficiently large emergency fund is extremely small compared to the overall population. Personally, I have added a child rider to my own (term) insurance policies that covers any/all of my children. It does add some cost to my premiums, but it's a small cost on top of something that is already justifiably in place for myself. One other thing to be aware of: if you're in a group policy (any life insurance where you're automatically accepted without any underwriting process, like through a benefit at work, or some other club or association), the healthy members are subsidizing the unhealthy ones. If you're on the healthy side, you might consider foregoing that policy in favor of getting your own policy through an insurance company of your choice. If you're healthy, it will always be cheaper than the group coverage.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f2487f643a187dfc1e4bd144bd1b541", "text": "If the child can take over the life insurance when they wish to get a mortgage or have their own children, there may be a case for buying insurance for the child in the event that your child's health is not good enough for them to get cover at that time. However I don’t think this type of insurance is worth having.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bd91d50c44eebaa41dcc3607367f164", "text": "A $10,000 life insurance policy on a child only makes sense for a family that: Thus, it could make sense: Many families are in this financial situation. A family in the combination of this financial situation and this emotional situation might be well served to seek religious counsel. If they find ways to remember loved ones without expensive funerals, they could save money on insurance. Ironically, a much larger life insurance policy for a child might make more sense. Look at it this way: What is the replacement cost of a child? A family that has only one son (and any number of daughters), or a family that has only one daughter (and any number of sons), stands to lose an obvious part of their genetic and cultural legacy if they lose that son or daughter. It is expensive to conceive, bear, and raise a child to a particular age. This cost increases as the child ages. The number of years of child-raising cost obviously increases. Also, the cost of conceiving another child can go from very small to very large (especially if fertility treatment or sterilization-reversal surgery is required). Unfortunately, most life insurance companies do not think of things this way. I am not aware of any 100,000 - 250,000 dollar children's life insurance policies on the market.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b275b6fa68302c60f8818a7b3a3e540a", "text": "It probably does make sense for you to buy term life insurance separate from your employer, for a few reasons: There are a number of life insurance calculators on the web. Try two or three -- some of them ask different questions and can give you a range of answers regarding how much coverage you should have. Then take a look at some of the online quote sites -- there are a couple that don't require you to enter your personal information, just general age/health/zip code so you can get an accurate quote for a couple of different coverage levels without having to deal with a salesman yet. (It was my experience that these quotes were very close -- within $20/year -- of what I was quoted through an agent.) Using this information, decide how much coverage you need and can afford. If you're a homeowner, and the insurance company with whom you have your homeowner's policy offers life insurance, call them up and get a quote. They may be able to give you a discount because of your existing relationship; sanity check this against what you got from the quotes website.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d31afb23d1362c3d8ae5cbc15fb6ac4", "text": "As Mhoran stated, no dependents, no need. Even with dependants, insurance is to cover those who would otherwise have a hardship. Once the kids are off to college and house paid for, the need drops dramatically. There are some rather complex uses for insurance when estates are large but potentially illiquid. Clearly this doesn't apply to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a8fb59d672228ef0294113ad9e05b3d", "text": "\"Insurance is bought for peace of mind and to divert disaster. Diverting disaster is a good/great thing. If your house burned down, if someone hit your car, or some other devastating event (think medical) happened that required a more allocation than you could afford the series of issues may snowball and cause you to lose a far greater amount of money than the initial incident. This could be in the form of losing work time, losing a job, having to buy transportation quickly paying a premium, having to incur high rate debt and so on. For the middle income and lower classes medical, house, and medical insurance certainly falls into these categories. Also why a lot of states have buyout options on auto insurance (some will let you drive without insurance by proving bonding up to 250K. Now the other insurance as I have alluded to is for peace of mind mainly. This is your laptop insurance, vacation insurance and so on. The premise of these insurances is that no matter what happens you can get back to \"\"even\"\" by paying just a little extra. However what other answers have failed to clarify is the idea of insurance. It is an agreement that you will pay a company money right now. And then if a certain set of events happen, you follow their guidelines, they are still in business, they still have the same protocols, and so on that you will get some benefit when something \"\"disadvantageous\"\" happens to you. We buy insurance because we think we can snap our fingers and life will be back to normal. For bigger things like medical, home, and auto there are more regulations but I could get 1000 comments on people getting screwed over by their insurance companies. For smaller things, almost all insurance is outsourced to a 3rd party not affiliated legally with a business. Therefore if the costs are too high they can simply go under, and if the costs are low they continue helping the consumer (that doesn't need help). So we buy insurance divert catastrophe or because we have fallen for the insurance sales pitch. And an easy way to get around the sales pitch - as the person selling you the insurance if you can have their name and info and they will be personally liable if the insurance company fails their end of the bargain.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4882b8e4c72e7699c98b66c08721effe", "text": "re life insurance Multi-purpose vehicles generally don't work as well as just going with single purpose, well except for the person/company selling them. 'whole life' plans are a great deal for the insurance company and agent, not so much for you. The easiest way to prove this to yourself is to get the difference in price between a simple 'term life' product that would be appropriate to provide for your family in the event you die. Then get the price for a 'whole life' product with the same benefits, and what it would be worth after say 20 or 30 years. Take the difference you would have to pay, figure what it would be worth if invested conservatively over the same period, figuring in some conservative figure for compound growth such as 6 percent (what you could get from a good long term savings bond or index based mutual fund). The last time I did this, the pure value of the money alone, without ANY interest was within something like 80 % of the value of the whole life policy.. adding in even a conservative amount of interest turned it into a no brainer. the whole life plan was terrible as in investment vehicle. I was far far better off using term life and investing the difference.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "975c75548b7fa0be94d43acffa121145", "text": "\"I was a Primerica representative, left to be on my own, and then returned. Insurance is one matter that depends on the individual. Some do not need it. For example, when I was an independent agent with an independent marketing organization (IMO) (oh yes! multi-level is everywhere, dont kid yourself) I had an upline as well. We were pushed to sell final expense [burial insurance]. As an ethical agent, I believe this is a bad business practice. Primerica does not sell unneeded insurance to old people. How can you justify selling the elderly, insurance to cover them for $10,000, at almost 100 to 150 a month? I told my elderly potential clients, after seeing they live on a tight budget, that they were better off purchasing a cremation policy or funeral package than burial insurances as it would save them money in the long run. Primerica is right in saying they are the only ones out there catering to the Working Class and Middle-America. Where else can you start an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) with $25 a month? Nowhere! All the other insurance producers want more money. They don't want to spend their time with what they call \"\"losers\"\". I love showing Poor people how the Rich get richer. Poor people should know the truth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfe6baf0c8053dd25f2f4ba19e01794f", "text": "The point of insurance is to trade high variable costs for much lower fixed costs. The question isn't whether you can afford what would be a catastrophic event for anyone else, but whether it would be better to pay a small amount regularly vs. a possibly larger amount occasionally. One of the reasons to buy insurance is to avoid costly litigation (rich people are more frequently targeted for litigation). By purchasing liability insurance, the insurance company pays for the litigation and/or settlement. If you are wealthy enough to keep an experienced litigation firm on retainer, you may not need that benefit, but it might be worth giving that stress to a third party. Life insurance is also an important part of estate planning because of the tax treatment of insurance payouts compared to the tax treatment of a large estate. There are certainly classes of insurance that make less sense for those with great cash flow, but money doesn't obviate all the benefits of insurance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f60dae4742b7b4fd2c06b84dc792b557", "text": "Insurance is a funny product. As you said, it is a little like gambling. When I buy term life insurance, I'm essentially betting that I'm going to die within the next 20 years, and the insurance company is betting that I'm not. I'm hoping to lose that bet! Besides all of the reasons that other answers mentioned, I think part of the reason is psychological. As in my example, I'm setting up a kind of a win-win situation for myself here. Let's go with car insurance, a less-morbid example than my first example. If I don't get into a car accident, great! If I do get into a car accident, then the traumatic event is at least offset by the fact that the financial impact to me is minimal. Win-win.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a924e9c0149bfcb9783023f072d2b620", "text": "Well, actually in your brother's case it's quite a good idea. Not as a savings method, but as what it is - insurance. As long as he's alive and well he can pay his own debts, they're his problem and it's his responsibility. Once something, god forbid, happens to him - the debts become the problem of his survivors (you, if he doesn't have kids, for example). His life insurance should provide the means to pay off the inherited debts. So the point of life insurance as insurance is to make sure those who survive you have enough of what they need to continue living as they were with you. Some policies take into account injuries and work disability, so that not only when you die there are benefits, but also when you had an accident and can no longer work. Some policies are basically a combination of savings and insurance - that's the policies discussed in the investing threads. edit as clarified in the comments, debts cannot be inherited per se, they will be paid off from the estate before disbursement of such. What it means though is, if the deceased had accrued significant debt, all his assets may go to the creditors leaving survivors with nothing, which may also mean homeless. That was the kind of a problem I was talking about.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7413b64dd84b48bcc6de3cb284dff30", "text": "We asked the same question earlier this year as my wife is a SAHM with 2 young boys (5 and under). If something happened to her I'd have to quit work or change careers to stay home to raise them or something. We ended up getting a decent 20 year level TERM policy that will cover the care of both boys for many of their younger years. The cost is negligible but the piece of mind is priceless.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0022ac822ab0387b525238d0b7156096", "text": "There's nothing new about Whole Life Insurance. The agent stands to earn a pretty hefty commission if he can sell it to you. I don't think your assets warrant using it for avoiding the taxes that would be due on a larger estate. I don't see a compelling reason to buy it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "985428520785513a47db82e09ae42b42", "text": "In addition to changing the beneficiary of the account, you can withdraw excess funds without penalty if the child dies or is disabled, or if the child gets a scholarship. Also remember that the tax and penalty is on earnings, not principal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1022fd9d04a1de19cc3cf55a44739e37", "text": "Like others mentioned you need to look at the big picture. Personally I'm not a fan of insurance based investments. They tend to have horrible track records and you're locked it and paying way to much money for them. I had one for a number of years and when I finally cancelled it I pulled out almost the exact amount I put in. So it basically grew at either zero or negative interest for 5+ years. I ended up buying Term Life and took the difference and invested it in a Roth 401K. Much better use of my money. The reason why insurance people push these policies so hard is that they make insane commission on it over 2-3 years (I asked my insurance guy about it and he admitted that, plus doing some research you'll find that out as well). Hope this helps somewhat.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "084088085c5d314c7889b4ff5d7668ba", "text": "\"Let's face it: most people pay more in insurance premiums than they \"\"get back\"\" in claims. I put \"\"get back\"\" in quotes because, with very few exceptions, the money paid out in claims does not go to the insured, but to others, such as doctors and hospitals. But even if you ignore the question who does the money actually go to, it's a losing proposition for most people. The exceptions are those who have a major loss, greater than what they put in over the years. But never forget: these are exceptions. The return on your money, on the average, is only a little better than playing the lottery. The usual counter-argument to the above is, but what if you are one of the exceptions? I for one refuse to let my life be dictated by worries of unlikely events that might happen. If you're the sort who obsesses on what could (but probably won't) happen, then maybe you should have insurance. Just don't tell me I need to do the same. When I lived in California, they had a program where you could deposit $25,000 with the State, and then you could drive, legally, without insurance. I did this for a while, didn't have any accidents, and exited the system (when I moved out of state) a few years later with more money (interest) than I put in. You don't accomplish that with insurance. But let's get back to rich people. Unless you get into an accident with you at fault and the other guy needing a head transplant as a result (joke), you could probably absorb the cost of an accident without blinking an eye. Those in the upper-middle-class might do well with high-deductible insurance that only pays out if there's an extreme accident. Then again if you have to borrow to buy something expensive (making monthly payments), they will usually demand you buy insurance with it. This is a way for the lender to protect himself at your expense, and if you refuse, good luck getting a loan somewhere else. I hate the idea of insurance so much I would make an act of insurance punishable by law.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0cceb497f58538334e0e4db26852665f", "text": "Something I wanted to posit: Do you have a life insurance policy, either taken out yourself or offered through your company? Many of these policies will pay out prior to the death of the covered individual, given statements by medical professionals that the person has a terminal illness or condition. The benefit, once disbursed, can be used for almost anything, including to pay down a mortgage, cover medical bills and other care expenses, etc. If you have such a policy, I urge you to look into it; that is the money that should be used for your end-of-life care and to ease the burden on your family, not your retirement savings. Your savings, if possible, should be left to continue to compound to provide your wife with a nest egg to retire with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4235c550d5320e788346bb69d057967b", "text": "\"In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an \"\"up\"\" day or selling on a \"\"down\"\" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
cb3344271dbe555193fa577457c9b147	Investing in a growth stock periodically	[ { "docid": "40ead7a7f462b5e7c70fea1d19b68f18", "text": "I would encourage you to read The Warren Buffett Way. Its a short read and available from most libraries as an audio book. It should address most of the ignorance that your post displays. Short term prices, offered in the market, do not necessarily reflect the future value of a company. In the short term the market is a popularity contest, in the long run prices increases based on the performance of the company. How much free cash flow (and related metrics) does the company generate. You seem way overly concerned with short term price fluctuations and as such you are more speculating. Expecting a 10 bagger in 2-3 years is unrealistic. Has it happened, sure, but it is a rare thing. Most would be happy to have a 2 bagger in that time frame. If I was in your shoes I'd buy the stock, and watch it. Provided management meet my expectations and made good business decisions I would hold it and add to my position as I was able and the market was willing to sell me the company at a good price. It is good to look at index funds as a diversification. Assuming everything goes perfectly, in 2-3 years, you would have an extra 1K dollars. Big deal. How much money could you earn during that time period? Simply by working at a fairly humble job you should be able to earn between 60K and 90K during that time. If you stuck 10% of that income into a savings account you would be far better off (6K to 9K) then if this stock actually does double. Hopefully that gets you thinking. Staring out is about earning and saving/investing. Start building funds that can compound. Very early on, the rate of return (provided it is not negative) is very unimportant. The key is to get money to compound!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7fd41a325f0fb649082ee85699cff9a3", "text": "First, you need to understand that not every investor's goals are the same. Some investors are investing for income. They want to invest in a profitable company and use the profit from the company as income. If that investor invests only in stocks that do not pay a dividend, the only way he can realize income is to sell his investment. But he can invest in companies that pay a regular dividend and use that income while keeping his investment intact. Imagine this: Let's say I own a profitable company, and I offer to sell you part ownership in that company. However, I tell you this upfront: no matter how much profit our company makes, you will never get a penny from me. You will be getting a stock certificate - a piece of paper - and that's it. You can watch the company grow, and you can tell yourself you own it, but the only way you will personally benefit from your investment would be to sell your piece to someone else, who would also never see a penny in profit. Does that sound like a good investment? The fact of the matter is, stocks in companies that do not distribute dividends do have value, but this value is largely based on the potential of profits/dividends at some point in the future. If a company vows never ever to pay dividends, why would anyone invest? An investment would be more of a donation (like Kickstarter) at that point. A company that pays dividends is possibly past their growth stage. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have stopped growing altogether, but remember that an expansion project for any company does not automatically yield a good result. If a company does not have a good opportunity currently for a growth project, I as an investor would rather get a dividend than have the company blow all the profit on a ill-fated gamble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5a728a9343d324f805da3dee3ef082c", "text": "Your example shows a 4% dividend. If we assume the stock continues to yield 4%, the math drops to something simple. Rule of 72 says your shares will double in 18 years. So in 18 years, 1000 shares will be 2000, at whatever price it's trading. Shares X (1.04)^N years = shares after N years. This is as good an oversimplification as any.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13d54dbd5a6b33f419ebeafe4f977782", "text": "\"I read the book, and I'm willing to believe you'd have a good chance of beating the market with this strategy - it is a reasonable, rational, and mechanical investment discipline. I doubt it's overplayed and overused to the point that it won't ever work again. But only IF you stick to it, and doing so would be very hard (behaviorally). Which is probably why it isn't overplayed and overused already. This strategy makes you place trades in companies you often won't have heard of, with volatile prices. The best way to use the strategy would be to try to get it automated somehow and avoid looking at the individual stocks, I bet, to take your behavior out of it. There may well be some risk factors in this strategy that you don't have in an S&P 500 fund, and those could explain some of the higher returns; for example, a basket of sketchier companies could be more vulnerable to economic events. The strategy won't beat the market every year, either, so that can test your behavior. Strategies tend to work and then stop working (as the book even mentions). This is related to whether other investors are piling in to the strategy and pushing up prices, in part. But also, outside events can just happen to line up poorly for a given strategy; for example a bunch of the \"\"fundamental index\"\" ETFs that looked at dividend yield launched right before all the high-dividend financials cratered. Investing in high-dividend stocks probably is and was a reasonable strategy in general, but it wasn't a great strategy for a couple years there. Anytime you don't buy the whole market, you risk both positive and negative deviations from it. Here's maybe a bigger-picture point, though. I happen to think \"\"beating the market\"\" is a big old distraction for individual investors; what you really want is predictable, adequate returns, who cares if the market returns 20% as long as your returns are adequate, and who cares if you beat the market by 5% if the market cratered 40%. So I'm not a huge fan of investment books that are structured around the topic of beating the market. Whether it's index fund advocates saying \"\"you can't beat the market so buy the index\"\" or Greenblatt saying \"\"here's how to beat the market with this strategy,\"\" it's still all about beating the market. And to me, beating the market is just irrelevant. Nobody ever bought their food in retirement because they did or did not beat the market. To me, beating the market is a game for the kind of actively-managed mutual fund that has a 90%-plus R-squared correlation with the index; often called an \"\"index hugger,\"\" these funds are just trying to eke out a little bit better result than the market, and often get a little bit worse result, and overall are a lot of effort with no purpose. Just get the index fund rather than these. If you're getting active management involved, I'd rather see a big deviation from the index, and I'd like that deviation to be related to risk control: hedging, or pulling back to cash when valuations get rich, or avoiding companies without a \"\"moat\"\" and margin of safety, or whatever kind of risk control, but something. In a fund like this, you aren't trying to beat the market, you're trying to increase the chances of adequate returns - you're optimizing for predictability. I'm not sure the magic formula is the best way to do that, focused as it is on beating the market rather than on risk control. Sorry for the extra digression but I hope I answered the question a bit, too. ;-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fdf8698afbbce4fdfcff1a82a3e7435", "text": "\"A growth fund is looking to invest in stocks that will appreciate in stock price over time as the companies grow revenues and market share. A dividend fund is looking to invest in stocks of companies that pay dividends per share. These may also be called \"\"income\"\" funds. In general, growth stocks tend to be younger companies and tend to have a higher volatility - larger up and down swings in stock price as compared to more established companies. So, growth stocks are a little riskier than stocks of more established/stable companies. Stocks that pay dividends are usually more established companies with a good revenue stream and well established market share who don't expect to grow the company by leaps and bounds. Having a stable balance sheet over several years and paying dividends to shareholders tends to stabilize the stock price - lower volatility, less speculation, smaller swings in stock price. So, income stocks are considered lower risk than growth stocks. Funds that invest in dividend stocks are looking for steady reliable returns - not necessarily the highest possible return. They will favor lower, more reliable returns in order to avoid the drama of high volatility and possible loss of capital. Funds that invest in growth stocks are looking for higher returns, but with that comes a greater risk of losing value. If the fund manager believes an industry sector is on a growth path, the fund may invest in several small promising companies in the hopes that one or two of them will do very well and make up for lackluster performance by the rest. As with all stock investments, there are no guarantees. Investing in funds instead of individual stocks allows you invest in multiple companies to ride the average - avoid large losses if a single company takes a sudden downturn. Dividend funds can lose value if the market in general or the industry sector that the fund focuses on takes a downturn.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "281b87ce29ace56b33b832593ffd7a81", "text": "Avoiding tobacco, etc is fairly standard for a fund claiming ethical investing, though it varies. The hard one on your list is loans. You might want to check out Islamic mutual funds. Charging interest is against Sharia law. For example: http://www.saturna.com/amana/index.shtml From their about page: Our Funds favor companies with low price-to-earnings multiples, strong balance sheets, and proven businesses. They follow a value-oriented approach consistent with Islamic finance principles. Generally, these principles require that investors avoid interest and investments in businesses such as liquor, pornography, gambling, and banks. The Funds avoid bonds and other conventional fixed-income securities. So, it looks like it's got your list covered. (Not a recommendation, btw. I know nothing about Amana's performance.) Edit: A little more detail of their philosophy from Amana's growth fund page: Generally, Islamic principles require that investors share in profit and loss, that they receive no usury or interest, and that they do not invest in a business that is prohibited by Islamic principles. Some of the businesses not permitted are liquor, wine, casinos, pornography, insurance, gambling, pork processing, and interest-based banks or finance associations. The Growth Fund does not make any investments that pay interest. In accordance with Islamic principles, the Fund shall not purchase conventional bonds, debentures, or other interest-paying obligations of indebtedness. Islamic principles discourage speculation, and the Fund tends to hold investments for several years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "992d568e9fb89ec12d5ec9d42554e089", "text": "What is your investing goal? And what do you mean by investing? Do you necessarily mean investing in the stock market or are you just looking to grow your money? Also, will you be able to add to that amount on a regular basis going forward? If you are just looking for a way to get $100 into the stock market, your best option may be DRIP investing. (DRIP stands for Dividend Re-Investment Plan.) The idea is that you buy shares in a company (typically directly from the company) and then the money from the dividends are automatically used to buy additional fractional shares. Most DRIP plans also allow you to invest additional on a monthly basis (even fractional shares). The advantages of this approach for you is that many DRIP plans have small upfront requirements. I just looked up Coca-cola's and they have a $500 minimum, but they will reduce the requirement to $50 if you continue investing $50/month. The fees for DRIP plans also generally fairly small which is going to be important to you as if you take a traditional broker approach too large a percentage of your money will be going to commissions. Other stock DRIP plans may have lower monthly requirements, but don't make your decision on which stock to buy based on who has the lowest minimum: you only want a stock that is going to grow in value. They primary disadvantages of this approach is that you will be investing in a only a single stock (I don't believe that can get started with a mutual fund or ETF with $100), you will be fairly committed to that stock, and you will be taking a long term investing approach. The Motley Fool investing website also has some information on DRIP plans : http://www.fool.com/DRIPPort/HowToInvestDRIPs.htm . It's a fairly old article, but I imagine that many of the links still work and the principles still apply If you are looking for a more medium term or balanced investment, I would advise just opening an online savings account. If you can grow that to $500 or $1,000 you will have more options available to you. Even though savings accounts don't pay significant interest right now, they can still help you grow your money by helping you segregate your money and make regular deposits into savings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7a5a99324e8131e0591b96330f6b8c1", "text": "Investing in companies because they are successful and growing is a common fallacy. Their stocks usually don't perform any better than average stocks because you get what you pay for. You have to consider valuation even when selecting growth stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4fd3346b362b43bc4afa5ecfc367ae3", "text": "\"I'd agree that this can seem a little unfair, but it's an unavoidable consequence of the necessary practicality of paying out dividends periodically (rather than continuously), and differential taxation of income and capital gains. To see more clearly what's going on here, consider buying stock in a company with extremely simple economics: it generates a certain, constant earnings stream equivalent to $10 per share per annum, and redistributes all of that profit as periodic dividends (let's say once annually). Assume there's no intrinsic growth, and that the firm's instrinsic value (which we'll say is $90 per share) is completely neutral to any other market factors. Under these economics, this stock price will show a \"\"sawtooth\"\" evolution, accruing from $90 to $100 over the course of a year, and resetting back down to $90 after each dividend payment. Now, if I am invested in this stock for some period of time, the fair outcome would be that I receive an appropriately time-weighted share of the $10 annual earnings per share, less my tax. If I am invested for an exact calendar year, this works as I'd expect: the stock price on any given day in the year will be the same as it was exactly one year earlier, so I'll realise zero capital gain, but I'll have collected a $10 taxed dividend along the way. On the other hand, what if I am invested for exactly half a year, spanning a dividend payment? I receive a dividend payment of $10 less tax, but I make a capital loss of -$5. Overall, pre-tax, I'm up $5 per share as expected. However, the respective tax treatment of the dividend payment (which is classed as income) and the capital gains is likely to be different. In particular, to benefit from the \"\"negative\"\" taxation of the capital loss I need to have some positive capital gain elsewhere to offset it - if I can't do that, I'm much worse off compared to half the full-year return. Further, even if I can offset against a gain elsewhere the effective taxation rates are likely to be different - but note that this could work for or against me (if my capital gains rate is greater than my income tax rate I'd actually benefit). And if I'm invested for half a year, but not spanning a dividend, I make $5 of pure capital gains, and realise a different effective taxation rate again. In an ideal world I'd agree that the effective taxation rate wouldn't depend on the exact timing of my transactions like this, but in reality it's unavoidable in the interests of practicality. And so long as the rules are clear, I wouldn't say it's unfair per se, it just adds a bit of complexity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56941f61022dfec7fea49b5f306ff12e", "text": "\"You can certainly try to do this, but it's risky and very expensive. Consider a simplified example. You buy 1000 shares of ABC at $1.00 each, with the intention of selling them all when the price reaches $1.01. Rinse and repeat, right? You might think the example above will net you a tidy $10 profit. But you have to factor in trade commissions. Most brokerages are going to charge you per trade. Fidelity for example, want $4.95 per trade; that's for both the buying and the selling. So your 1000 shares actually cost you $1004.95, and then when you sell them for $1.01 each, they take their $4.95 fee again, leaving you with a measly $1.10 in profit. Meanwhile, your entire $1000 stake was at risk of never making ANY profit - you may have been unlucky enough to buy at the stock's peak price before a slow (or even fast) decline towards eventual bankruptcy. The other problem with this is that you need a stock that is both stable and volatile at the same time. You need the volatility to ensure the price keeps swinging between your buy and sell thresholds, over and over again. You need stability to ensure it doesn't move well away from those thresholds altogether. If it doesn't have this weird stable-volatility thing, then you are shooting yourself in the foot by not holding the stock for longer: why sell for $1.01 if it goes up to $1.10 ten minutes later? Why buy for $1.00 when it keeps dropping to $0.95 ten minutes later? Your strategy means you are always taking the smallest possible profit, for the same amount of risk. Another method might be to only trade each stock once, and hope that you never pick a loser. Perhaps look for something that has been steadily climbing in price, buy, make your tiny profit, then move on to the next company. However you still have the risk of buying something at it's peak price and being in for an awfully long wait before you can cash out (if ever). And if all that wasn't enough to put you off, brokerages have special rules for \"\"frequent traders\"\" that just make it all the more complicated. Not worth the hassle IMO.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4243204acd7aa7a6f881b59294cbe58", "text": "2.5 years is a short period in the stock market. That means there is a significant chance it will be lower in 2.5 years, whereas it is very likely to be higher over a longer time period like 5-10 years. So if you want the funds to grow for sure then consider an online savings account, where you might earn 1-2%. If you want to do stocks anyway, but don't have any idea what fund to buy, the safest default choice is to buy an index fund that tracks the S&P 500. Vanguard's VFINX is one example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9d0671f97e043bc4c5aab149a7f419b", "text": "It is not unheard of. Celebrity investors such as Warren Buffet and Carl Icahn gained notoriety by more than doubling investments some years, with a few very stellar trades and bets. Doubling, as in a 100% gain, is actually conservative if you want to play that game, as 500%, 1200% and greater gains are possible and were achieved by the two otherwise unrelated people I mentioned. This reality is opposite of the comparably pitiful returns that Warren Buffet teaches baby boomers about, but compounding on 2-5% gains annually is a more likely way to build wealth. It is unreasonable to say and expect that you will get the outcome of doubling an investment year over year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a13a5183fa18ad97d0487ffeb6827fd9", "text": "\"is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index. Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them. Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these \"\"duds\"\". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now. But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month. No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate. Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion. Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income. If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years. The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers. (Amongst many other possible measures.) They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years. Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example. There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old. Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses. Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better. I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments. Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former. In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns. Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio. Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cac2f8096f2ec2234d0b587551f30b9", "text": "You could buy debt/notes or other instruments that pay out periodically. Some examples are If there is an income stream you can discount the present value and then buy it/own the rights to income stream. Typically you pay a discounted price for the face value and then receive the income stream over time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86704e9414561fb2c3e4e274142c69d4", "text": "Sad part is that you aren't going to make meaningful gains with small account like that unless you are putting everything into one stock and trying to squeeze out 10% gains each trade. At this point, your main focus contributing money into the account regularly. You will be able to trade more frequently as you get more money into the account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73ef8e8eee6d0af27702fa012c74a352", "text": "Katherine from Betterment here. I wanted to address your inquiry and another comment regarding our services. I agree with JAGAnalyst - it's detrimental to your returns and potential for growth if you try to time the market. That's why Betterment offers customized asset allocation for each portfolio based on the nature of your goal, time horizon, and how much you are able to put towards your investments. We do this so regardless of what's happening in the markets, you can feel comfortable that your asset allocation plus other determining factors will get you where you need to go, without having to time your investing. We also put out quite a bit of content regarding market timing and why we think it's an unwise practice. We believe continuously depositing to your goal, especially through auto-deposits, compounding returns, tax-efficient auto-rebalancing, and reinvesting dividends are the best ways to grow your assets. Let me know if you would like additional information regarding Betterment accounts and our best practices. I am available at buck@betterment.com and am always happy to speak about Betterment's services. Katherine Buck, Betterment Community Manager", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a050e704fb60df9c9fc1b31731320a37	Credit cards: How is a cash advance different from a purchase? Why are the fees so high?	[ { "docid": "580d7128f24e08befbe78bf7c0f80f29", "text": "Essentially speaking, when you purchase goods worth $100 using your card, the store has to pay about $2 for the transaction to the company that operates that stores' credit card terminal. If you withdraw cash from an ATM, you might be charged a fee for such a transaction. However, the ATM operator doesn't pay the credit processor such a transaction fee - thus, it is classified as a cash transaction. Additionally, performing cash advances off a CC is a rather good indicator of a bad financial health of the user, which increase the risk of default, and in some institutions is a factor contributing to their internal creditworthiness assessment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce7c0d1463f54bb3023002cd4b68a3ca", "text": "Think about the credit card business model... they have two revenue generators: interest and fees from borrowers and commissions and fees to merchants. The key to a successful credit card is to both sign up lots of borrowers AND lots of merchants. Credit card fortunes have improved dramatically since the 1990's when formerly off-limits merchants like grocery stores began to accept cards. So when a credit card lets you just pull cash out of any ATM, there are a few costs they need to account for when pricing the cost for such a service: Credit card banks have managed to make cash advances both a profit center and a self-serving perk. Knowing that you can always draw upon your credit line for an emergency when cash is necessary makes you less likely to actually carry cash and more likely to just rely on your credit card.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "22338a43b9006dea9a3662a5d65947de", "text": "Nope. Or at least, if it were possible the company offering such a credit card would quickly go out of business. Credit card companies make money off of fees from the merchants the user is buying from and from the users themselves. If they charged no fees to the user on cash advances and, in fact, gave a 3% back on cash advances, then it would be possible for a user to: The company would lose money until they stopped the loophole or went out of business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8edec56f6e8886c6593c04371274b994", "text": "Each ATM, the machine, belongs to one or more networks. Those networks work with multiple types of cards. Each card belongs to one or more networks. The overlap of the networks the machine belongs to, and the card belongs to determines if the card works and what fees and limits apply. In general if the credit card belongs to one of the major networks (VISA, Master Card, American Express and Discover) you shouldn't have a problem finding a ATM that will give you a cash advance, or even a cash advance without an ATM Fee. Each credit card network should have a web interface to show you where the ATMs are that will work with the card. If it is a store credit card it still might belong to one of the major networks. If the bank that issues the card is local you can probably get a cash advance at the bank branch. Use the website to see if the ATM/Branch locations are convenient for you. The actual limits are a function of the card type, and the credit limit that you have been approved for. In my experience the maximum amount of cash advance outstanding is half the credit limit, but you need to check with your card. Keep in mind unless you have a special offer from the credit card company expect that there will be a fee charged by the credit card company for the cash advance, this is in addition to a fee charged by the ATM. Also remember that interest starts to accumulate on day one of the cash advance. It isn't like a regular purchase that might not be charged interest until the cycle closes and the payment is due. The documentation from the credit card company will describe all the fees and limits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80519dc892a32a27903d0d13fdc93213", "text": "It comes down to liability - if a fraudulent transaction takes place with a debit card, you are out $$ until it is resolved - while as with a credit card, the credit lender is out $$ - the credit lender does not like losing $$, and therefore would like to be paid extra $$ for assuming this risk, and they found the merchant as the one most willing to pay. Sometimes the merchant will pass on this cost to the consumer, but often times the credit card company has a contract with the merchant preventing such a fee, because then they would be at a price disadvantage when compared to debit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dac5b86f380989b690c52d2169211410", "text": "Some large merchants do not give discounts for cash payments as this does not work out any cheaper for them, vs Credit Card payments. In Credit Card typically fees given to all the 3 parties (Merchant bank, Issuer Bank and Visa) would be around 3%. If cash payment is made, and the amounts are large (say at Walmart / K-Mart they have to deposit such cash at Banks, Have a provision to Storing Cash at Stores, People to count the cash. So essentially they will have to pay for Cash Officer to count, Bigger Safe to store, Transport & Security & Insurance to take Cash to Bank Plus Banks charge around 1% charge for counting the large cash being deposited. This cash would be in local branch where as the operations are centralized and Walmart/K-Mart would need the money in central account, it takes time to get it transferred to a central account, and there is a fee charged by Bank to do this automatically. On the other hand, smaller merchants would like cash as they are operated stand-alone and most of their purchases are also cash. Hence they would tend to give a discount for cash payment if any.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbb3ec715d8b422ce3e1ee805b3c85dc", "text": "Interchange fees. Every time a customer buys something on credit, the seller pays a fee. They're not allowed to itemize that fee and pass it on to the buyer, but they can offer a cash payment discount. In short, rewards cards are a system of collective bargaining for buyers versus sellers. Some argue it drives prices up for everyone who isn't a cardholder, but I think the evidence is mixed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fd4368bb8ad318dbea1df5ac59478d1", "text": "\"I don't know personally, but a few minutes spent on Google seem to indicate that such transactions are considered cash advances. I found a thread at fatwallet which states that buying chips on a credit card is considered a cash advance. If you want to research it yourself, I used the following search terms: casino chips credit card cash advance. You could probably narrow down the search results by using casino chips \"\"credit card\"\" \"\"cash advance\"\" as the query.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "013e7bbdcf2f60f8c14ed6aeb7d90a95", "text": "\"This is most likely protecting Square's relationship with Visa/Mastercard/AMEX/etc. Credit card companies typically charge their customers a much higher interest rate with no grace period on cash advances (withdrawals made from an ATM using a credit card). If you use Square to generate something that looks like a \"\"merchandise transaction\"\" but instead just hand over a wad of banknotes, you're forcing the credit card company to apply their cheaper \"\"purchases\"\" interest rate on the transaction, plus award any applicable cashback offers†, etc. Square would absolutely profit off of this, but since it would result in less revenue for the partner credit card companies, that would quickly sour the relationship and could even result in them terminating their agreements with Square altogether. † This is the kind of activity they are trying to prevent: 1. Bill yourself $5,000 for \"\"merchandise\"\", but instead give yourself cash. 2. Earn 1.5% cashback ($75). 3. Use $4,925 of the cash and a $75 statement credit to pay your credit card statement. 4. Pocket the difference. 5. Repeat. Note, the fees involved probably negate any potential gain shown in this example, but I'm sure with enough creative thinking someone would figure out a way to game the system if it wasn't expressly forbidden in the terms of service\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "980123d8da7cef03e7dd8c49a9b7197d", "text": "My experience is in the United States only. In the past, American Express marketed its products as more exclusive and prestigious than other cards. There was an attempt to give the impression that cardholders were more qualified financially. In return, fees were higher both to merchants and to cardholders. At the time (early 1990's), it was not common to use credit cards for small purchases, such as groceries or fast food. Credit cards were used for larger purchases such as jewelry or electronics or dinner in a nicer restaurant. Once it became popular to use credit cards for everyday purchases, the demand for customers using credit cards changed to the highest number of people instead of people of higher status. At that point, Visa (and to a lesser extent Mastercard) transaction volume increased dramatically. Merchants needed the largest number of customers with cards, not the most financially stable. As Visa volume grew, and people started using Visa for small purchases, the use of American Express decreased as their habits changed (once someone got used to pulling out Visa, they did it in every situation). Merchants are less willing to go through the extra hassle of accepting cards that are used by fewer people. Over time, I suspect this process led to the gap between Visa and American Express. As a merchant, in order to accept credit cards, you have to set up a bank account and maintain a merchant account. Accepting Visa, MC and Discover can all be done through one account, but American Express has traditionally required a separate relationship, as well as its own set of rules and fees that were generally higher. Since there are relatively few American Express cardholders compared to Visa, there is doubt about whether it is worth it accept the card. It depends upon the customer base. Fine restaurants still generally accept American Express.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8eae4250e2e3489c53d593d1700969d9", "text": "You know those perks/benefits that you don't want to give up? Those are funded by the fees you are trying to eliminate by paying cash. The credit card company makes money by interest, merchant fees, and other fees such a annual fees. They give you perks to generate more transactions, thus bringing in more merchant fees. For a small business they need to balance the fee of the credit card transaction with the knowledge that it is convenient for many customers. Some small businesses will set a minimum card transaction level. They do this because the small transaction on a credit card will be more expensive because the credit card company will charge 2% or 50 cents whichever is larger. Yes a business does figure the cost of the cards into their prices, but they can get ahead a little bit if some customers voluntarily forgo using the credit card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bccb983d14f6dd4cd56803b4fd88b12c", "text": "The Bank have risk. In goods, thrre are two profiles, essentially it can be convenient and hence the usage, pay off monthly or spending future earnings today for luxury. The way cash advance is seen, emergency, ran out of cash in foreign/remote location... Debit cards not working etc. One generally needs small amount of cash. The other segment is loss of income. Essentially I have run out of cash and I need to borrow. This is additional risk and hence is limited or curtailed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "168fed10b0b6237fe69e21c4ccffcd46", "text": "Although there are no transaction fees from PayPal, your bank should treat this as a cash advance rather than a payment and so will charge you fees. The cash advance fee will be larger than 1%, so you'll definitely lose money. Plus you'll start paying interest immediately (unlike for purchases). PayPal warns that you'll get cash advance fees here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b454bdd66734e04e3cd3b92bb4779f8f", "text": "I'm an Australian who just got back from a trip to Malaysia for two weeks over the New Year, so this feels a bit like dejavu! I set up a 28 Degrees credit card (my first ever!) because of their low exchange rate and lack of fees on credit card transactions. People say it's the best card for travel and I was ready for it. However, since Malaysia is largely a cash economy (especially in the non-city areas), I found myself mostly just withdrawing money from my credit card and thus getting hit with a cash advance fee ($4) and instant application of the high interest rate (22%) on the money. Since I was there already and had no other alternatives, I made five withdrawals over the two weeks and ended up paying about $21 in fees. Not great! But last time I travelled I had a Commonwealth Bank Travel Money Card (not a great idea), and if I'd used that instead on this trip and given up fees for a higher exchange rate, I would have been charged an extra $60! Presumably my Commonwealth debit card would have been the same. This isn't even including mandatory ATM fees. If I've learned anything from this experience and these envelope calculations I'm doing now, it's these:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f858b32f420e644bcc515ce8d8da0566", "text": "\"Most credit cards allow you to take \"\"cash advances\"\", but the fees and limits for cash advances are different than for regular purchases. You can buy stock after taking a cash advance from your credit card. When you make a cash advance, you normally pay the credit card company a fee. When you make a regular purchase, the merchant (ie, the stockbroker) pays a fee. Additionally, credit card companies can make merchants wait up to 3 months to actually receive the money, in case the transaction is disputed. Your stockbroker is unlikely to want to pay the fee, accept the delay in receiving the funds, and risking that you will dispute the transaction. Having said that, many FOREX brokers will accept credit card deposits (treated as purchases), although FOREX can be considerably riskier than the stock market. Of course, if you max out your credit cards and lose all your money, you can normally negotiate to pay back the debt for less than the original amount, especially since it's unsecured debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d8d1ca1f1ac2f7f965dc501cd5c996e", "text": "My bank charges me on my statement for debit transactions, but rewards me with bogo points when I run transactions as credit. AFAIK, retailers are prevented by contract with VISA et all from recouping the merchant fee from you (instead they can mark up all prices and offer a 'cash discount'), not that you'll be able to convince your vietnamese grocer of this. The difference between debit and credit fees is large enough that even these small tricks by the bank can mean a lot of money for them. Since most retailers accept either, they recruit me into their profit game with carrots and sticks. I've since moved to an actual cash back credit card and haven't regretted it yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d779cf9b522dace5934e0ee2a3dc591", "text": "\"These days almost all risky assets move together, so the most difficult criterion to match from your 4 will be \"\"not strongly correlated to the U.S. economy.\"\" However, depending on how you define \"\"strongly,\"\" you may want to consider the following: Be careful, you are sort of asking for the impossible here, so these will all be caveat emptor type assets. EDIT: A recent WSJ article talks about what some professional investors are doing to find uncorrelated bets. Alfredo Viegas, an emerging-markets strategist for boutique brokerage Knight Capital Group, is encouraging clients to bet against Israeli bonds. His theory: Investors are so focused on Europe that they are misjudging risks in the Middle East, such as a flare-up in relations between Israel and Iran, or greater conflict in Egypt and Syria. Once they wake up to those risks, Israeli bonds are likely to tumble, Mr. Viegas reasons. In the meantime, the investment isn't likely to be pushed one way or another by the European crisis, he says.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
25666b205feda35b41578beadfe92dda	S&P is consistently beating inflation?	[ { "docid": "9b7c5fcd4fce83c37e92792c0c83ace5", "text": "\"TL;DR: Because stocks represent added value from corporate profits, and not the price the goods themselves are sold at. This is actually a very complicated subject. But here's the simplest answer I can come up with. Stocks are a commodity, just like milk, eggs, and bread. The government only tracks certain commodities (consumables) as part of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). These are generally commodities that the typical person will consume on a daily or weekly basis, or need to survive (food, rent, etc.). These are present values. Stock prices, on the other hand, represent an educated guess (or bet) on a company's future performance. If Apple has historically performed well, and analysts expect it to continue to perform, then investors will pay more for a stock that they feel will continue pay good dividends in the future. Compound this with the fact that there is usually limited a supply of stock for a particular company (unless they issue more stock). If we go back to Apple as an example, they can raise their price they charge on an iPhone from $400 to $450 over the course of say a couple years. Some of this may be due to higher wage costs, but efficiencies in the marketplace actually tend to drive down costs to produce goods, so they will probably actually turn a higher profit by raising their price, even if they have to pay higher wages (or possibly even if they don't raise their price!). This, in economics, is termed value added. Finally, @Hart is absolutely correct in his comment about the stocks in the S&P 500 not being static. Additionally, the S&P 500 is a hand picked set of \"\"winners\"\", if you will. These are not run-of-the-mill penny stocks for companies that will be out of business in a week. These are companies that Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC thinks will perform well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf488aa5ec973e17a92d53852a16100c", "text": "\"Inflation and stock returns are completely different things The CPI tracks the changes in the prices of a basket of goods a consumer might buy, the S&P 500 tracks the returns earned by investors in the equity of large companies. The two are very different things, and not closely linked. Example: A world without inflation Consider a world in which there was no inflation. Prices are fixed. Should stocks return zero? Certainly not. Companies take raw materials and produce goods and services that have value greater than that of the raw materials. They create new wealth. This wealth becomes profit for the company, which then is passed on to the owners of the company (equityholders) either in the form of dividends or, more commonly, price increases. Example: A world with no inflation and no economic growth Note that I have not implied above that companies have to grow in order for returns to outperform inflation. Total stock returns depend on the current and expected profit of the firm. Firms can remain the same size and continually kick out profits. Total returns will be positive in this environment even if there is no growth and no inflation. If the firms pay the money out as dividends, investors get a cash flow. If they retain these earnings, the value of the firm's equity increases. Total returns take both types of income into account. Technically the S&P 500 is not a total return index, but in our current legal and corporate culture environment, there is a preference for retaining profits rather than paying them out. This causes price increases. Risk bearing In principle, if profit was assured, then investors would bid up stock prices so high that profit would have to compete with the risk-free rate, which often is close to inflation (like, right now). However, profit is not assured. Firm profit swings around over time and constitutes a significant source of risk. We can think of the owners of the firm as being the bondholders and equityholders. These assets are structured such that almost all the profit risk is born by equityholders. We can therefore think of equityholders as being compensated for bearing the risk that would otherwise be born by bondholders. Because equityholders are bearing risk, stock prices must be low enough that stocks have a positive expected return (above the risk-free rate, which is presumably not significantly below inflation). This is true for the same reason that insurance premiums are positive--people have to be compensated for bearing risk. See my answer to this question for a discussion of why risk means we should expect stock prices to increase indefinitely (even if inflation halts). The S&P is not a measure of firm size or value The S&P measures the return earned by investors, not the size of US companies. True, if constituent companies grow and nothing else changes, the index goes up, but if a company shrinks a lot, it gets dropped out, rather than dragging the index down. By the way, please note that dollars \"\"put into\"\" equities are not stuck somewhere. They are passed on to the seller, who then uses it to buy something (even if this is a new equity issuance and the seller is the firm itself). The logic that growth of firms somehow sucks money out of usage is incorrect.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "636c82034cad8c30b43c9f13cad4e238", "text": "\"The U.S. economy has grown at just under 3% a year after inflation over the past 50 years. (Some of this occurred to \"\"private\"\" companies that are not listed on the stock market, or before they were listed.) The stock market returns averaged 7.14% a year, \"\"gross,\"\" but when you subtract the 4.67% inflation, the \"\"net\"\" number is 2.47% a year. That gain corresponds closely to the \"\"just under 3% a year\"\" GDP growth during that time.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8d2417fd1e8eb8a7ede06951fc8de9c8", "text": "\"Yes. The definition of unreasonable shows as \"\"not guided by or based on good sense.\"\" 100% years require a high risk. Can your one stock double, or even go up three fold? Sure, but that would likely be a small part of your portfolio. Overall, long term, you are not likely to beat the market by such high numbers. That said, I had 2 years of returns well over 100%. 1998, and 1999. The S&P was up 26.7% and 19.5%, and I was very leverage in high tech stock options. As others mentioned, leverage was key. (Mark used the term 'gearing' which I think is leverage). When 2000 started crashing, I had taken enough off the table to end the year down 12% vs the S&P -10%, but this was down from a near 50% gain in Q1 of that year. As the crash continued, I was no longer leveraged and haven't been since. The last 12 years or so, I've happily lagged the S&P by a few basis points (.04-.02%). Also note, Buffet has returned an amazing 15.9%/yr on average for the last 30 years (vs the S&P 11.4%). 16% is far from 100%. The last 10 year, however, his return was a modest 8.6%, just .1% above the S&P.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2c844760b10919a890be503d0f7d801", "text": "\"They don't, actually. Though in some time frames S&P 500 growth out performs S&P 500, it often lags. This is because \"\"growth\"\" doesn't refer to what happens to your account, but rather the type of stock in the index -- roughly speaking, it's the half of the S&P with the best earnings growth. That would be great, except it's not looking for is to see if that growth is worth buying. A stock with a 20% growth rate is a great buy at a P/E of 15, but a terrible buy at P/E/ 50. That leads to what JB King was talking about -- there's also the S&P 500 Value, which is roughly the cheapest stocks relative to earnings. Value does tend to beat the broad index over the long haul, because there's nothing like getting a good deal (note a stock can be in both the growth and value categories). This holds true with other indexes as well like the Russel 2000. All that said, you're not going to see a huge difference between S&P 500 and S&P 500 Growth. I believe this is because the S&P 500 itself leans a bit to the growthy side. PS: With VOOG Vanguard is tracking the S&P 500 Growth Index, which is actually a thing and not Vanguard itself filtering stocks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84b3cf05ee6db62987649b0d8dafb074", "text": "\"You can see how much of a percentage the S&P 500 is of the GDP over the past 10 years in this handy graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=oCZ When the stock market was doing poorly (2009) it was only 0.06% of GDP. When it's doing well (now) it's 0.12% of the GDP. It's also not useful to directly compare percentages like you're doing. Just because one averages 6% growth and one averages 3% growth, that doesn't mean that the 6% one will take over. It doesn't take much of a correction to wipe out decades of S&P vs GDP growth. You might also be interested in knowing that this ratio is similar to the \"\"Buffet Indicator\"\", how Warren Buffet decides if stocks are overvalued as a whole: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/04/04/market-cap-to-gdp-an-updated-look-at-the-buffett-valuation-indicator\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d468a0e6187ebb28e046806b9f0ccf5", "text": "\"Your explanation is nearly perfect and not \"\"hand wavy\"\" at all. Stock prices reflect the collective wisdom of all participating investors. Investors value stocks based on how much value they expect the stock to produce now and in the future. So, the stability of the stock prices is a reflection of the accuracy of the investors predictions. Investor naivity can be seen as a sequence of increasingly sophisticated stock pricing strategies: If investors were able to predict the future perfectly, then all stock prices would rise at the same constant rate. In theory, if a particular investor is able to \"\"beat the market\"\", it is because they are better at predicting the future profits of companies (or they are lucky, or they are better at predicting the irrational behavior of other investors......)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2649f29b989d8e7f895fca5b3d7d7194", "text": "\"At the bottom of Yahoo! Finance's S & P 500 quote Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE MKT. See also delay times for other exchanges. All information provided \"\"as is\"\" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data, daily updates, fund summary, fund performance, dividend data and Morningstar Index data provided by Morningstar, Inc. Orderbook quotes are provided by BATS Exchange. US Financials data provided by Edgar Online and all other Financials provided by Capital IQ. International historical chart data, daily updates, fundAnalyst estimates data provided by Thomson Financial Network. All data povided by Thomson Financial Network is based solely upon research information provided by third party analysts. Yahoo! has not reviewed, and in no way endorses the validity of such data. Yahoo! and ThomsonFN shall not be liable for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Thus, yes there is a DB being accessed that there is likely an agreement between Yahoo! and the providers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fe88507bbc13e2adef09b375816123b", "text": "\"Being long the S&P Index ETF you can expect to make money. The index itself will never \"\"crash\"\" because the individual stocks in it are simply removed when they begin performing badly. This is not to say that the S&P Index won't lose 80% of its value in an instant (or over a few trading sessions if circuit breakers are considered), but even in the 2008 correction, the S&P still traded far above book value. With this in mind, you have to realize, that despite common sentiment, the indexes are hardly representative of \"\"the market\"\". They are just a derivative, and as you might be aware, derivatives can enable financial tricks far removed from reality. Regarding index funds, if a small group of people decide that 401k's are performing badly, then they will simply rebalance the components of the indexes with companies that are doing well. The headline will be \"\"S&P makes ANOTHER record high today\"\" So although panic selling can disrupt the order book, especially during periods of illiquidity, with the current structure \"\"the stock market\"\" being based off of three composite indexes, can never crash, because there will always exist a company that is not exposed to broad market fluctuations and will be performing better by fundamentals and share price. Similarly, you collect dividends from the index ETFs. You can also sell covered calls on your holdings. The CBOE has a chart through the 2008 crisis showing your theoretical profit and loss if you sold calls 2 standard deviations out of the money, at every monthly interval. If you are going to be holding an index ETF for a long time, then you shouldn't be concerned about its share price at all, since the returns would be pretty abysmal either way, but it should suffice for hedging inflation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd66966f0541ccfd05860777d41fc257", "text": "Eh using a benchmark that's designed for Hedge Funds is a little different. I was guessing the other comment was referring to SPX or similar for the 10%. Most people don't understand HF as investment vehicles. They are meant to be market neutral and focused on absolute returns. Yes, you can benchmark them against each other / strategy but most people here seem to think that HFs want to beat the S&P 500.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "340b75b1e37eecd052b891c6d5bbe629", "text": "Inflation can be a misleading indicator. Partly because it is not measured as a function of the change in prices of everything in the economy, just the basket of goods deemed essential. The other problem is that several things operate on it, the supply of money, the total quantity of goods being exchanged, and the supply of credit. Because the supply of goods divides - as more stuff is available prices drop - it's not possible to know purely from the price level, if prices are rising because there's an actual shortage (say a crop failure), or simply monetary expansion. At this point it also helps to know that the total money supply of the USA (as measured by total quantity of money in bank deposits) doubles every 10 years, and has done that consistently since the 1970's. USA Total Bank Deposits So I would say Simon Moore manages to be right for the wrong reasons. Despite low inflation, cash holdings are being proportionally devalued as the money supply increases. Most of the increase, is going into the stock market. However, since shares aren't included in the measures of inflation, then it doesn't influence the inflation rate. Still, if you look at the quantity of shares your money will buy now, as opposed to 5 years ago, it's clear that the value of your money has dropped substantially. The joker in the pack is the influence of the credit supply on the price level.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c84d0cd8ba4ce0d23663e0591844911", "text": "Gold is a risky and volatile investment. If you want an investment that's inflation-proof, you should buy index-linked government bonds in the currency that you plan to be spending the money in, assuming that government controls its own currency and has a good credit rating.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57165bce8395c150584db3d30c37a8d3", "text": "Well, you can't really have it both ways. You said that they were both using the same method, but, in fact, they aren't. You can call the weighting biased, but in fact if appears that BPP is doing little or minimal weighting, and yet still is showing that prices, in general, are mapping similarly to the BLS published CPI. Unless you're arguing an MIT 'academic conspiracy' (and even if you are), I think you've failed to make your case. BPP is independant, it uses a different methodology, and yet the results confirm those of the BLS.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4db9c2c21d5bcb01b3362aa9694b5d97", "text": ">I would be interested in knowing how much of the recent returns of the S&P are being driven purely by the Fed bond purchase program, controlling for other macro-economic variables. The correlation of asset purchase dollars and SPX level does not answer this question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1688c0affff288ef6402d045731b746", "text": "The answer would depend on the equities held. Some can weather inflation better than others (such as companies that have solid dividend growth) and even outpace inflation. Some industries are also safer against inflation than others, such as consumer staples and utilities since people usually have to purchase these regardless of how much $ they have. In looking over the data comparing S&P 500 returns, dividends, and inflation, the results are all over the map. In the 50's the total return was 19.3% with inflation at 2.2%. Then in the 70's returns were 5.8% with inflation at 7.4 percent, leading one to think that inflation diminished returns. But then in the 80's inflation was 5.1%, yet the return on the S&P was up to 17.3% Either way, aside from the 70's every other decade since 1950 has outpaced inflation (as long as you are including dividends; hence my first paragraph). S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns Also, the 7% average stock appreciation you mention is just that, an average. You are comparing a year-over-year number (7% inflation) with an aggregated one (stock performance over x number of years) and that is a misrepresentation and is not being weighted for the difference in what those numbers mean. Finally, there are thousands of things that have an effect on the stock market and stocks. Some are controllable and others are not. The idea that any one of them, such as inflation, has any sort of long-term, everlasting effect on prices that they cannot outmaneuver is improbable. This is where researching your stocks comes in...and if done prudently, who cares what the inflation rate is?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bb9adeade58010a31af818f57c0402f", "text": "Ok opinion but too bad it's not supported by data in the article. The opinion is backed by a survey of opinions, not actual inflation and employment figures. If prices are rising generally (and not just in individual commodities), why isn't that being reflected in inflation and employment numbers? Wouldn't we expect to see gross employment numbers trending downwards and inflation trending upwards since the beginning of the year?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbcdc4709a26a75edae1f33af053105b", "text": "This didn't answer his question. Also, while I agree with you that the Dow is meaningless (and your explanation why). In the investment industry, we don't only focus on the S&P Index.. Many have a specific benchmark they aim to outperform that matches their investment strategy (i.e. Russell Mid Cap Value, Russell 3000, etc.).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "802d65fbf36c083b5d83d94fbb814bc0", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-13/fed-s-patient-or-preemptive-clash-looms-as-inflation-misses-goal?cmpId=flipboard) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) *** > The debate over whether the Fed should get ahead of the inflation curve or stick with a wait-and-see approach is heating up ahead of the Federal Open Market Committee&#039;s meeting next week. > Part of the doubt is due to low inflation expectations, which may represent the underlying, trend level of inflation. > &quot;The key question in my mind is how to achieve an improvement in longer-run inflation expectations to a level that will allow us to achieve our inflation objective,&quot; Brainard said. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6zwx8i/act_or_wait_fed_debate_heats_up_after_inflation/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~209135 tl;drs so far.\"\") \| [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") \| Top* keywords: inflation^#1 whether^#2 market^#3 policy^#4 year^#5\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ecf61f86b1560704e794ab8eb179c88b	Is there a standard check format in the USA?	[ { "docid": "bfd3eb0b7e5e8a780a7c355f643759a2", "text": "\"Legally, a check just needs to have a certain list of things (be an instruction to one's bank to pay a specific amount of money to bearer or to a specific entity, have a date, have a signature, etc.) There are anecdotes around of a guy depositing a junk mail check and it accidentally qualifying as a real check (which he turned into a live show), or of writing a check on a door, cow, or \"\"the shirt off your back\"\". What kind of checks your bank will process is technically up to them. Generally, if you get your blank checks printed up by any reputable firm, they'll have similar information in similar places, as well as the MICR line (the account and routing number in magnetic ink on the bottom) to allow for bank to process the checks with automated equipment. As long as it's a standard size, has the MICR line, and has the information that a check needs, your bank is likely to be fine with it. So, there are some standards, but details like where exactly the name of the bank is, or what font is used, or the like, are up to whoever is printing the check. For details on what standards your bank requires in order to process your checks, you'd have to check with your bank directly. Though, it wouldn't surprise me if they just directed you to their preferred check printer provider, as they know that they accept their check format fine. Though as I said, any reputable check printer makes sure that they meet the standards to get processed by banks without trouble. Unless you're a business that's going to be writing a lot of checks and pay a lot of fees for the privilege, a bank is not likely to want to make exceptions for you for your own custom-printed octagonal checks written in ancient Vulcan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c743e2b0aae682b2668a1394df2d6d16", "text": "\"Many years ago, I worked on software that had to print the date, payee, and amounts on pre-printed checks. Other than the MICR line (which had a particular placement with respect to the bottom edge and required a particular font in a particular point size), most aspects of the check layout and format were up to the particular check provider. Then there was a desire to start using optical character recognition to further automate check handling. A standard came out, that most checks I see now seem to follow. The standard dictated the exact dollar sign glyph to be printed to the left of the amount box. This glyph was used by the OCR to locate the amount. There were specific tolerances for where you could print/write the amount relative to that dollar sign. There were also some requirements for the box containing the amount to have some clearance from the noisy backgrounds pre-printed on many checks. But what font you used inside the amount box was, as far as I could tell, unspecified. After all, customers could always hand-write the amount. Interestingly, the part of the check where you spell out the amount is known as the \"\"legal amount.\"\" If the amount in numerals and the amount in words don't match, the spelled version takes precedence, legally. (The theory being that it's easier to doctor the numerals to change the apparent value of the check than it is to change the words.) I always found it ironic that the layout standard to enable OCR standard was focused on reading the numerals rather than the legal amount. OCR has come a long way since then, so I wouldn't be surprised if, nowadays, both amounts are read, even on hand-written checks. A little search shows that current (voluntary) standards are put out by the ANSI X9 group.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "daf503bdb47cbd99db8a0575dccf9bc1", "text": "No, there is no standard. I see all kinds of paper sizes, and the amount, date, etc. is all over the place. They are all rectangular, but otherwise there seems to be a lot of freedom.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "667d32f4e1e3404eca02464fa3df91b6", "text": "\"Nope, anything is that has the required information is fine. At a minimum you need to have the routing number, account number, amount, \"\"pay to\"\" line and a signature. The only laws are that it can't be written on anything illegal, like human skin, and it has to be portable, not carved on the side of a building ( for example) https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-20434,00.html http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/12/people-actually-cash-big-novelty-checks-even-possible/ That said, the MICR line and standard sizes will make things eaiser for they bank, but are hardly required. You could write your check on notebook paper so long as it had the right information, and the bank would have to \"\"cash it\"\". Keep in mind that a check is an order to the bank to give your money to a person and nothing more. You could write it out in sentence form. \"\"Give Bill $2 from account 12344221 routing number 123121133111 signed _________\"\" and it would be valid. In practice though, it would be a fight. Mostly the bank would try to urge you to use a standard check, or could hold the funds because it looks odd, till they received the ok from \"\"the other bank\"\". But.... If you rant to fight that fight....\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a52af80db391a615a2d0e6454abb495b", "text": "They are valid checks, but you're going to get hassled when you try to use them. There's a perception that people using starter checks are more likely to bounce or otherwise be troublesome. When more payments were made with checks, some vendors would not accept checks with low numbers either! Checks are very cheap to get printed these days, save yourself some trouble and get some printed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58654a927a52b3436e6c0ccfaf535765", "text": "Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a604457a8b2691dc2a260e9b318da026", "text": "\"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed \"\"as deposit only\"\" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de5b3b9faab2ae254ca546bb6740d4e1", "text": "In the US, paper checks are still the rule, and there is a large amount of the population that does not care to use online banking. As a result, those people need to go to the bank once a week or more often, to deposit checks they get from anywhere, to get cash, etc.; so all those little banks have traffic. This is slowly changing, and banks start to automatic the processes even in the brick-and-mortar location, but for now, they are around.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7c55f0acbaef0b64df8e7e0a1cda7f8", "text": "\"Read the check: it says \"\"Pay to the order of ...\"\". It's simply an order from you to your bank to give money to someone. It can be written on anything. Back in the olden days (a hundred years or so ago) it would have simply been a letter to the bank. Those rules haven't changed much with today's automation. What matters is that the order comes from you, which means it must have your signature. If the bank pays a check with a fraudulent signature they're responsible. Granted, banks don't look very carefully at checks any more (I once accidentally swapped two checks when I paid bills, and the phone company simply gave me a $700 credit on my $50-a-month account), but if they screw up it's their problem.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c608f69c9e18b78cf31cbd7865b487d1", "text": "There is no difference they are both insufficient in 1 form or another.Bad slang for any check the bank won't cash, for any reason, Ie. insf. unreadable amount, acct or routing number, the acct.has been closed, or you didn't write the check(fraud). Bounced is slang for bank returned check unpaid.I wrote a bad check but it didn't bounce.The check is still insufficient but the bank didn't return it. $500.00 is the felony threshold in okla. less than $500.00 is a misdemeanor. but insf. fees ranging from ($25.00 to $50.00 vendor returned check fee + amount of check) x (bank insf fees of $25 to $50)is an effective deterent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2acf99226ed0dfb29bdfd1c8bfa6d16", "text": "\"In the US, Section 3.114 of the Uniform Commercial Code sets the rules for how any confusion in checks or other business transactions is handled: “If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.” If there was any ambiguity in the way you wrote out the amount, the institution will compare the two fields (the written words and the courtesy box (digits)) to see if the ambiguity can be resolved. The reality is that the busy tellers and ATM operators typically are going to look at the numeric digits first. So even if they happen to notice the traditional \"\"and...\"\" missing, it seems highly unlikely that such an omission would cause enough ambiguity between these the two fields to reject the payment. Common sense dictates here. I wouldn't worry about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3189b23d3dcbfdb99fbde707af816777", "text": "Some check as part of a background investigation. Money problems can make it hard to establish a level of trust. If your credit is bad you might be easy to bribe. Or you might steal from the company. The level of importance will depend on the job you are applying for, or for the customer you will be working for. Government jobs or government contracts frequently require background checks. Jobs that will involve having access to high value items or money will also require a check.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cb2a9643708b5505e3ebd3fc591d30f", "text": "\"Technically it doesn't matter what size the check is. In fact, it doesn't even have to be written on paper. While writing it on a cow may not always fly, almost any object actually will. That said, more to the question asked - you can definitely use the smaller \"\"personal\"\"-sized checks for a business account. The larger checks formatted to the \"\"letter\"\" page size: if you cut it into three equal pieces with a tiny bit left for the binder holes - you'll get exactly three check-sized pieces. This is convenient for those printing checks, keeping carbon-copy records etc. Regarding the MICR line: I just checked my business check book, which is of a smaller \"\"personal\"\" size (that I got for free from the bank) - the check number is at the end.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fffb74ba8313f7a711cd5eb56455bbde", "text": "Navy Federal Credit Union recently added this feature. It is free for members making a deposit to their personal checking account, though you have to be a member for at least 90 days to be eligible. I have an all-in-one printer with flatbed scanner and availed myself of the service a couple of days ago. There wasn't any additional software involved as everything was done through the web browser, as shown the scan deposit demo. The only problem I had was figuring out how to align the check for it to be scanned completely (had to place the check in the middle of the scanner, aligned lengthwise; that was more of a hassle to figure out that one would suppose). That was it. I immediately received an e-mail confirmation that my deposit had been approved and processed. While Navy Federal's scan deposit FAQ is specific to them, of course, it is pretty comprehensive and gives one an idea of the general restrictions applied to the service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b06c4c5629a4c4f0af1e5c054ff97484", "text": "Actually banks aren't required to (and don't) report on 8300 because they already report $10k+ cash transactions to FinCEN as a Currency Transaction Report (CTR), which is substantively similar; see the first item under Exceptions in the second column of page 3 of the actual form. Yes, 8300 is for businesses, that's why the form title is '... Received In A Trade Or Business'. You did not receive the money as part of a trade or business, and it's not taxable income to you, so you aren't required to report receiving it. Your tenses are unclear, but assuming you haven't deposited yet, when you do the bank will confirm your identity and file their CTR. It is extremely unlikely the government will investigate you for a single transaction close to $10k -- they're after whales and killer sharks, not minnows (metaphorically) -- but if they do, when they do, you simply explain where the money came from. The IRS abuses were with respect to people (mostly small businesses) that made numerous cash deposits slightly under $10k, which can be (but in the abuse cases actually was not) an attempt to avoid reporting, which is called 'structuring'. As long as you cooperate with the bank's required reporting and don't avoid it, you are fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8935f4f9f839987be51bdc9ca58e298", "text": "\"You can (usually) take it to your bank, and with appropriate identification, endorse the check with the words, \"\"not used for the purpose intended.\"\" The one time I needed to not-use a money order, I was instructed to do so by the cashier/clerk at the bank.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3849e3003518435903391eaf972f235", "text": "The paper check method also allows the bank to use your money while the check is in the mail. My bank debits my account immediately, so while my $100 utility bill is traveling the U.S. Postal System for two days, they can make use of my $100 in whatever slush fund they like.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b492f20ffd670ec5f37f67561c177c5", "text": "\"You do not need to write anything on the second line. There are a variety of helpful things that you can add, e.g.: For Deposit Only. This tells the bank to deposit the check into your account and ignore other signatures. Your account number. Especially useful when added to \"\"For Deposit Only\"\". A countersignature. This tells the bank to pay the check to someone other than you. Countersigned checks used to be much more common than they are now. Someone who didn't have a bank account might ask someone who did to cash a check for them. See also: Four ways to endorse a check which gives the correct format for endorsing a check in these ways.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c03d7d3c2bfc374ae93d7b90d38fdd3", "text": "most def. When I have an algorithmic trading strategy I want to spitball, or some question about how to exploit netback pricing inefficiency between West Texas Intermediate and Brent prices based on some sort of shipping rate change, I'd like to post here. When I want a new job, I'll go to r/financialcareers.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f10ab34aeea5b46485b5563bf612a205	Why do stock prices change? [duplicate]	[ { "docid": "33559cb95204fca917084c32f4a7cebd", "text": "\"None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Sure it is, it's just not always obvious. When a company makes money it either: Other then the fourth option, the first three all increase the total value of the company. If you owned 1% of a company that was worth X, and is now worth X+1, the value of that 1% ownership should go up as well. One model of the value of a share of stock is the present value of all future cash flows that the company produces for its shareholders, which would be either through dividends, earnings (provided that they are invested back into the company) or through liquidation (sale). So as earnings increase (or more accurately as projected future earnings increase), so does the value of a share of the company. Also note that the payment of dividends causes the price of a stock to go down when the dividend is paid, since that's equity (cash) that's leaving the company, reducing the value of the company by an equivalent amount. Of course, there's also something to be said for the behavioral aspect of investing, meaning that people sometimes invest in companies that they like, and sell stock of companies that they don't like or disagree with (e.g. Nordstrom's).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac18a23cf30f659b257d22786cc092b5", "text": "\"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (\"\"ownership\"\") to people who buy stocks from it. It's not \"\"ownership\"\" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way. You own part of the company. If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner. In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing). After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company. The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock. The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership. If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings. Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future. What do the prospects look like for this industry? A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific. Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate? Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive? If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced. So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd3a39f62b2c1d88d7d979fe0bea2df1", "text": "In addition to D. Stanley's very fine answer, the price of stocks change as a result of changing market conditions and the resulting investor estimation of its effect on the company's future earnings. Take these examples. Right now, in the USA, there is a housing shortage; that is, there are fewer houses available for purchase than there are willing buyers. Investors will correctly assume that the future earnings of home builders will be higher than they were, say ten years ago. Seeking to capitalize on these higher earnings, they will try to buy the stocks. However, the current owners of the stock, potentially the sellers, know the same thing as the investor-buyer and therefore demand a premium to entice a sale. The price of the stock has risen. The reverse is true, also. Brick and mortar retailers are declining as more consumers prefer on-line retail shopping. The current owners of these stocks will probably want to sell their stock before it is worth even less. The investor-buyer also knows the same facts; that future earnings will most likely be less for these companies. The potential buyer offers a very low price to entice a sale. The price of the stock has fallen. Finally, the price of stocks rise and fall with general market conditions. As an example, assume that next months jobs report is released showing that 350,000 new jobs were created in July. Investors will believe that if companies are hiring, then the companies are doing well; they are selling products and services at a higher than expected rate, requiring that they add new employees. They will also conclude that those 350,000 new employees will be spending their salaries to buy not just food, clothing and shelter, but also a few luxuries like a newer car, a TV, perhaps even a new home (please see paragraph 2!). All of these companies will have more business, more earnings and, likely, a higher stock price.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5c58577f473a1dd7cc724c15df133583", "text": "Yes, but only in a relatively short term. False news or speculations can definitely change the stock price, sometimes even significantly. However, the stock price will eventually (in the long-term) correct itself and head to the right direction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8632d5c116e5d8e4cc5025c9fc91759e", "text": "As yet another explanation of why it does not really matter, you can look at this from the valuation point of view. Stock price is the present value of its future cash flows (be it free cash flow of the firm or dividends, depending on the model). Let's have a look at the dividends case. Imagine, the price of the stock is based on only three dividends streams $5 dollars each: dividend to be paid today, in year 1, and in year 2. Each should be discounted back to today (say, at 10%), except today's dividend, since today is now. Once that dividend is paid, it is no longer in the stream of cash flows. So if we just delete that first $5 from the formula, the price will adjust itself down by the amount of the dividend to $8.68. NOTE that this is a very simple example, since in reality cash flows streams are arguably infinite and because there are many other factors affecting stock price. But simply for your understanding, this example should provide you with the reason simply from the valuation perspective.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f89cf25648c78c059f612da6c62af257", "text": "Simple, there is no magic price adjustment after sales - why do you expect the stock price to change? The listed price of a stock is what someone was willing to pay for it in the last deal that was concluded. If any amount of stock changes ownership, this might have the effect that other people are willing to buy it for a higher price - or not. It is solely in the next buyer's decision what he is willing to pay. Example: if you think Apple stocks are worth 500$ a piece, and I buy a million of them, you might still think they are worth 500$. Or you might see this as a reason that they are worth 505$ now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8b1c36e5d1791682dd0255c1fe4c7d4", "text": "I don't know why stocks in some industries tend to have lower prices per share than others. It doesn't really matter much. Whether a company has 1,000,0000 shares selling for $100 each, or 10,000,000 shares selling for $10 each, either way the total value is the same. Companies generally like to keep the share price relatively low so that if someone wants to buy a small amount, they can. Like if the price was $10,000 per share, than an investor with less than $10,000 to put in that one stock would be priced out of the market. If it's $10, then if someone wants $10 they can buy one share, and if someone wants $10,000 they can buy 1000 shares. As to why energy stocks are volatile, I can think of several reasons. One, in our current world, energy is highly susceptible to politics. A lot of the world's energy comes from the Middle East, which is a notoriously unstable region. Any time there's conflict there, energy supplies from the region become uncertain. Oil-producing countries may embargo countries that they don't like. A war will, at the very least, interfere with transportation and shipping, and may result in oil wells being destroyed. Etc. Two, energy is consumed when you use it, and most consumers have very limited ability to stockpile. So you're constantly buying the energy you need as you need it. So if demand goes down, it is reflected immediately. Compare this to, say, clothing. Most people expect to keep the same clothes for years, wearing them repeatedly. (Hopefully washing them now and then!) So if for some reason you decided today that you only need three red shirts instead of four, this might not have any immediate impact on your buying. It could be months before you would have bought a new red shirt anyway. There is a tendency for the market to react rather slowly to changes in demand for shirts. But with energy, if you decide you only need to burn 3 gallons of gas per week instead of 4, your consumption goes down immediately, within days. Three, really adding to number two, energy is highly perishable, especially some forms of energy. If a solar power station is capable of producing 10 megawatts but today there is only demand for 9 megawatts, you can't save the unused megawatt for some future time when demand is higher. It's gone. (You can charge a battery with it, but that's pretty limited.) You can pile up coal or store natural gas in a tank until you need it, but you can't save the output of a power plant. Note numbers two and three also apply to food, which is why food production is also very volatile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d0b360de7d5745d006ae345e6072492", "text": "The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49f779c5fabf42933fb87c49daf79771", "text": "You would think that share prices is just a reflection of how well the company is doing but that is not always the case. Sometimes it reflects the investor confidence in the company more than the mere performance. So for instance if some oil company causes some natural disaster by letting one of there oil tankers crash into a coral reef then investor confidence my take a big hit and share prices my fall even if the bottom line of the company was not all that effected.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "992b3d565cc24fabd08e53b19d812338", "text": "Most stocks are not actively trades by lots of people. When you buy or sell a stock the price is set by the “order book” – that is the other people looking to trade in the given stock at the same time. Without a large number of active traders, it is very likely the pricing system will break down and result in widely changing prices second by second. Therefore for the market to work well, it need most people to be trading at the same time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a39047c6cf9a2daf3a06383fdb3e3041", "text": "Changes in implied volatility are caused by many things, of course, and it is tough to isolate the effect you are describing, but let's try to generalize for a moment. Implied volatility is generally a measure of how much expect uncertainty there is about the future price of the stock. Uncertainty generally is higher in periods including earnings announcements because it is significant new information about the company's fortunes can make for significant changes in the price. However, you could easily have the case where the earnings are good and for some reason the market is very certain that the earnings will be good and near a certain level. In that case the price would rise, but the implied volatility could well be lower because the market believes that there will be no significant new information in the earnings announcement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7604afb3ccde436812d42a15983537ec", "text": "A common (and important) measure of a stock's value is the price/earnings ratio, so an increase in earnings will normally cause the stock price to increase. However, the price of the stock is based on a guess of the value of the company some time (6 months?) in the future. So an increase in earnings today probably makes a higher earnings more likely in the future, and puts upward pressure on the price of the stock. There are a lot of other factors in stock prices, such as publicity, dividends, revenue, trends, company stability, and company history. Earnings is a very important factor, but not the only factor determine the value (and so stock price) of a company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea6d1cf4d269e3f9ed2721df920f0f01", "text": "If you look at S&P 500's closing price for the first trading day on December and January for the last 20 years, you will see that for 10 of these years, stocks did better overall and for 10 others they did worse. Thus you can see that the price of stocks do no necessarily increase. You can play around with the data here", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05516c497d6f1837c83f65431ab6d7ab", "text": "There are multiple factors at play that drive stock price movements, but one that can be visualized is that stocks can be priced relative to other (similar stocks). When one stock price goes up without fundamental changes (i.e. daily market noise/movements), it becomes slightly more expensive relative to it's peers. Opportunists will sell the now slightly more expensive stock, while others may buying the slightly cheaper (relatively) peer stock. Imagine millions of transactions like this happening throughout each hour, downward selling pressure on a stock that rises too fast in value relative to it's peers or the market, and upward buying pressure on stocks that are relatively cheaper than it's peers. It pushes two stocks towards an equilibrium that is directionally the same. Another way to think of it is lets say tomorrow there is $10B in net new dollars moved into buy orders for stocks that comes from net selling of bonds (this is also partly why bonds/stocks are generally inversely related). That money goes to buys stocks ABC, XYZ, EFG. As the price of those goes up with more buying pressure, stocks JKL, MNO, PQR are relatively a tad cheaper, so some money starts to flow into there. Repeat until you get a large majority of the stocks that buyers are willing to buy and you can see why stocks move in the same direction a lot of times.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae98e9950ffb69380d950ac90e2e8997", "text": "\"There is no fundamental, good reason, I think; \"\"that's just how it's done\"\" (which is what all the other answers seem to be saying, w/o coming out and admitting it). Just guessing, but I'll bet most of the reason is historical: Before up-to-the-moment quotes were readily available, that was a bit tedious to calculate/update the fund's value, so enacted-laws let it be done just once per day. (@NL7 quotes the security act of 1940, which certainly has been updated, but also still might contain the results of crufty rationales, like this.) There are genuinely different issues between funds and stocks, though: One share of a fund is fundamentally different from one share of stock: There is a finite supply of Company-X-stock, and people are trading that piece of ownership around, and barter to find an mutually-agreeable-price. But when you buy into a mutual-fund, the mutual-fund \"\"suddenly has more shares\"\" -- it takes your money and uses it to buy shares of the underlying stocks (in a ratio equal to its current holdings). As a consequence: the mutual fund's price isn't determined by two people bartering and agreeing on a price (like stock); there is exactly one sane way to price a mutual fund, and that's the weighted total of its underlying stock. If you wanted to sell your ownership-of-Mutual-Fund-Z to a friend at 2:34pm, there wouldn't be any bartering, you'd just calculate the value based on the stated-value of the underlying stock at that exact moment. So: there's no inherent reason you can't instantaneously price a mutual fund. BUT people don't really buy/sell funds to each other -- they go to the fund-manager and essentially make a deposit-or-withdraw. The fund-manager is only required by law to do it once a day (and perhaps even forbidden from doing it more often?), so that's all they do. [Disclaimer: I know very little about markets and finance. But I recognize answers that are 'just because'.]\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "597ca1be1e42819544c011da5e3bc91e", "text": "It seems to me that your main question here is about why a stock is worth anything at all, why it has any intrinsic value, and that the only way you could imagine a stock having value is if it pays a dividend, as though that's what you're buying in that case. Others have answered why a company may or may not pay a dividend, but I think glossed over the central question. A stock has value because it is ownership of a piece of the company. The company itself has value, in the form of: You get the idea. A company's value is based on things it owns or things that can be monetized. By extension, a share is a piece of all that. Some of these things don't have clear cut values, and this can result in differing opinions on what a company is worth. Share price also varies for many other reasons that are covered by other answers, but there is (almost) always some intrinsic value to a stock because part of its value represents real assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "392d53e0c27b44b922d2b8d50513eb4d", "text": "\"You can think of the situation as a kind of Nash equilibrium. If \"\"the market\"\" values stock based on the value of the company, then from an individual point of view it makes sense to value stock the same way. As an illustration, imagine that stock prices were associated with the amount of precipitation at the company's location, rather than the assets of the company. In this imaginary stock market, it would not benefit you to buy and sell stock according to the company's value. Instead, you would profit most from buying and selling according to the weather, like everyone else. (Whether this system — or the current one — would be stable in the long-term is another matter entirely.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a39b37febb386d8d25976b32ed6e7097", "text": "all of these examples are great if you actually believe in fundamentals, but who believes in fundamentals alone any more? Stock prices are driven by earnings, news, and public perception. For instance, a pharma company named Eyetech has their new macular degeneration drug approved by the FDA, and yet their stock price plummeted. Typically when a small pharma company gets a drug approved, it's off to the races. But, Genetech came out said their macular degeneration drug was going to be far more effective, and that they were well on track for approval.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3ab465579a9f3d8e87ec41088e001223	Was this bill forgotten by a medical provider, and do notices need to be sent before collections?	[ { "docid": "c4d5b36c6388949ec974c465ff19a204", "text": "Seems like the straightforward answer is to call the provider and ask. They should be able to tell you if you owe them or not. Unfortunately, with small providers there is always a chance they won't get even that right; I would confirm exactly why they think you don't owe them anything if in fact you don't. Medical providers can go after you for years later, depending on your state; so don't assume just because it's been months that they won't eventually. Smaller providers aren't terribly organized, but they do usually eventually go after most of those who owe them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7d4f142cf332be743cc17958f4cef28", "text": "Sometimes I think a question like this is one of moral versus legal. The reality is that you know you owe the money because you received the services. You're right that the bill should have been sent to you, and the natural urge for many people is to just count it in the win column when things like this happen and there's the chance to avoid paying. I suppose my question for you is, are you comfortable with the notion that you are not paying something that your heart of hearts tells you should be paid? If roles were reversed and you, as a business owner, had forgotten to bill something for which you were rightfully due payment, wouldn't you hope they'd have the integrity to pay you anyway? The legal side of this can be a bit trickier, and much depends on the state you're in (assuming you're in the U.S.) because some have stiffer consumer collection and protection laws than others. The rehab center could, when doing an audit of its accounts, discover that you didn't pay for these. They could take the polite course of action and call you with a gentle reminder or send a bill, or they could be not so nice about it. Either way, they can't send anything to collections for which you haven't been presented a bill and demonstrated an unwillingness to pay. There's a process in place, regardless of the state, so they can't just automatically put it into collections. I will close with this question for you: did the rehab center help you with what you needed, and are you healthier and better because of their care? If so, pay the bill. That's my advice. Keep in mind that unpaid medical costs just raise the prices for everyone else, because these providers will make up for the loss somewhere. I hope this helps. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1203172087dc797dbf83340a004bf503", "text": "\"check the DATE OF SERVICE on all your invoices carefully. It's possible you actually DID pay already. Sometimes when a medical provider gets \"\"mostly\"\" paid by a third party insurer, they just drop the (small) remainder, as it's more cost than it's worth if it is a trivial amount. Alternatively, they wait until you show up for another office visit, and \"\"ding\"\" you then!\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "bbbeb5a0fef77fa10d779f442ce583e1", "text": "You didn't buy it. Your mother did. You can try to cancel it if it was purchased in your name; if your mother purchased it she would have to cancel it. Either way, the company has done it's part by carrying you until that cancellation and you have no grounds for demanding a refund for time already covered. If your mother was spending your money, that is something you need to take up with her unless you want to bring charges against her for theft/fraud. If she was spending her own money, then you may want to talk to a lawyer about getting her declared incompetent so someone else can control her spending. But the money paid is probably gone. It isn't the insurance company's fault that you didn't want it doesn't, and if you don't bring charges you can't complain about their having accepted stolen money. Even if you do bring charges and win, it isn't clear you can get a refund. If you really want to pursue any of this, your next step is to talk to a lawyer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bf1cfcfad220756d3e5d8255f98729a", "text": "I actually did this once. I wrote a large check along with a letter indicating that I would not be around to receive the next bill so I was prepaying. Not only did they credit the entire check, they didn't send that bill and listed the charges on the next month's bill. They must have done that by hand because there's no way the machines would have understood.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ee4c9dabeb87c6563df6ee458d43127", "text": "This might be a good reason to check that box saying you want paper reports for those monthly statements. After all, you don't get any cost savings for opting for electronic files. Otherwise you are stuck arguing without documentation that you lost those files proving my account balance in the EM event.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c082f5ecaa21f07ffca04ffe9e7f91d4", "text": "A person name Matthew Drury or a similar name owes money on their loan, and it has gone to collections. The collections company is trying to match the account to a real person with money. They sent a letter to somebody (your grandmother) with the same last name. The debtor may have even lived in that town at sometime. The reason you received the letter is because your grandmother forward it on. Because the rest of your info (SSN and birth date) don't match the loan it is unlikely they can attach the debt to you. Unless you provided your address to the company you could in the future receive a letter from them. But I doubt they are going to send letters to everybody with the same name. I would not worry about it unless they actually send a letter or call you directly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29ef6cc191282be351d4331148875757", "text": "\"The presenter suggested we keep records of our claims for 10+ years in paper form. This seemed to be overkill. It would be overkill if you're taking distributions regularly and you have enough valid (and otherwise unreimbursed) medical receipts each year to correspond to your distributions. However, if you are pumping money into the HSA without regular distributions, then you may need to keep receipts for a long time, possibly since the beginning of your HSA. For example: If the IRS was to audit my HSA deductions would the Aetna online claims be adequate? It's better than nothing, but it is not ideal. You need to provide proof of what you actually paid, not just what was billed. (How would the IRS know if you actually paid the bill?) So, the bill and receipt together would be preferred. Also, there are many eligible expenses for HSA that would not be covered by your health insurance and would not appear in your Aetna statements (dental work for example). Personally I have an excel spreadsheet with every eligible expense listed, every contribution and distribution I make, and a box of receipts since I opened the HSA account. Should I also archive screenshots of these claims digitally somewhere? If you have the time and diligence to do it, then it wouldn't hurt. I personally am only one house fire away from having to make a lot of phone calls if I wanted to re-build my receipts folder from scratch. I actually have \"\"scan my HSA receipts\"\" on my todo list (where's it been for years as a pretty low priority). Lastly it makes sense to spend the money in my HSA on anything eligible because you can never roll it over into a retirement account, its shaky if another person (spouse) could get reimbursed for eligible medical expenses if you die, and if you lose your receipts you may not be able to spend all of the HSA money tax free. Is this an accurate assessment or is there a reason why I should not touch the HSA money at all and wait to reimburse my eligible expenses. First off, if you are married the HSA can be transferred to your spouse. But in general, it really depends on what you would do with the money if you distributed it right away. If you need the money to pay debts, bills, etc, then it might make sense to take it, but if it would be extra money that you would invest somewhere, then you should leave it in the HSA because it grows tax free while it's in there and (probably) wouldn't if you take it out. The caveat though is that you need to find an HSA administrator that offers your preferred investment choices. As for your worry that you might lose your receipts, well, that's a valid point- but I wouldn't drive my decision based on that- I would archive them digitally to remove that concern completely. ...Should I reimburse myself from ... the HSA funds if I am not hitting the 401k limit yet? It depends. If it's a Roth 401k, all other things being equal, (you are able to choose the same investments with your HSA as you can choose in your 401K, and the costs are the same), then you are better off leaving the money in your HSA rather than pulling it out and putting it into the Roth 401k. The reason is that there is no tax difference, and once you put it into the 401K you (probably) can't touch it (for free) until you retire. With the HSA, if you could have taken a distribution but chose not to, then you can take that amount of money out anytime you want to without any consequences, just like your normal checking account. However, if you have a traditional 401k, and if taking HSA distributions would increase your cash flow such that you could afford to contribute more to the 401k, then this would lower your tax burden that year by reducing your taxable income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57e1115d5f30efd13813bb51c89ac504", "text": "Hey, I was thinking back to that X-Ray you got done at the hospital, that you said was cheaper than 90% of the population. I am wondering if maybe that hospital wasn't one of the many that qualify for DSH reimbursement payments. What could have happened is that they saw that you are uninsured, and made a decision that they would only charge you for the portion that they didn't think Medicare / Medicaid would reimburse. If that happened, it wouldn't even show up on your credit report, as the hospital is the one that would file a credit claim. Likely, if they have to go through this a lot, they wouldn't even waste time filing a credit claim, they would just go after a reimbursement through Medicare / Medicaid. And thus, to you, it would just look like a very small bill, but in reality it would only represent a smaller portion of the true bill. I would also wonder, if they do a lot of these, if they aren't also one of the hospitals that article I linked to showed was super-inflating the prices of uninsured in the hopes of getting a larger portion reimbursed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09cb7679a6622307a4a0930d9926cce1", "text": "I just want to point out something that seems to be generally true: If you are supposed to report something to the IRS, and you don't, the IRS will probably send you a letter assuming the maximum possible tax liability, and it's up to you to prove that scenario is incorrect. In your case you obviously owe no tax, but since you didn't report it, the IRS simply assumed that you do owe tax until you prove otherwise. You're one form away from fixing the issue. I have first hand experience that this is also true if you forget to report an HSA distribution. I received a letter considering my entire distribution as if it was for non eligible medical expenses. This made the amount taxable and had an additional 20% penalty to boot. Of course I have medical receipts for all of the distributions which makes them not taxable, and had I simply put the correct number on my return to begin with I wouldn't have had to fill out the additional form to correct my mistake.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4e009c73344d99ad5fc4c8dfe63a334", "text": "\"I would start with actually talking to the collection agency. Say what you are saying here, namely: \"\"I'm willing to pay the debt if the creditor can prove to me that I owe them\"\". You can also talk to the health facility, ask them for information or records. You can start there and see what happens. Once you are ready to pay the debt you can negotiate to have the negative mark removed from your report. It really depends on the collection agency. They could be reasonable, or the could be total scum.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c5a4bac8a24e5bf6029c935ad008dae", "text": "You are making an assumption that may not be true: Unbeknownst to me, some apartment debt I paid had already been sold to a collections agency before I actually paid it. Typically debts are sold to a Debt Buyer, whereas a Collection Agency works on commission to collect debts on behalf of the creditor. If your debt was actually sold, you should have been notified in writing of this fact, and who the new creditor was. I suspect your debt was not sold, because if it was the apartment complex would not have been legally allowed to cash your check when you finally paid them. Therefore, it is most likely that the collection agency was working on commission, and the apartment complex never informed them that you had settled your debt. As for what to do about it, here are 3 options, ordered by likelihood of success: Good luck, and if you don't mind, please update us later on what you did and what the result was. Your experience will be helpful for others having this issue in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "add38ca7424072cd6aa0226650874a23", "text": "\"I had about $16k in student loans. I defaulted on the loans, and they got > passed to a collection type agency (OSCEOLA). These guys are as legitimate as a collection agency can be. One thing that I feel is very sketchy is when they were verifying my identity they said \"\"Does your Social Security Number end in ####. Is your Birthday Month/Day/Year.\"\" That is not sketchy. It would be sketchy for a caller to ask you to give that information; that's a common scheme for identity theft. OSCEOLA are following the rules on this one. My mom suggested I should consider applying for bankruptcy Won't help. Student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy. You have the bankruptcy \"\"reform\"\" act passed during the Bush 43 regime for that. The loan itself is from school. What school? Contact them and ask for help. They may have washed their hands of your case when they turned over your file to OSCEOLA. Then again, they may not. It's worth finding out. Also, name and shame the school. Future applicants should be warned that they will do this. What can I do to aid in my negotiations with this company? Don't negotiate on the phone. You've discovered that they won't honor such negotiations. Ask for written communications sent by postal mail. Keep copies of everything, including both sides of the canceled checks you use to make payments (during the six months and in the future). Keep making the payments you agreed to in the conversation six months ago. Do not, EVER, ignore a letter from them. Do not, EVER, skip going to court if they send you a summons to appear. They count on people doing this. They can get a default judgement if you don't show up. Then you're well and truly screwed. What do you want? You want the $4K fee removed. If you want something else, figure out what it is. Here's what to do: Write them a polite letter explaining what you said here. Recount the conversation you had with their telephone agent where they said they would remove the $4K fee if you made payments. Recount the later conversation. If possible give the dates of both conversations and the names of the both agents. Explain the situation completely. Don't assume the recipient of your letter knows anything about your case. Include evidence that you made payments as agreed during the six months. If you were late or something, don't withhold that. Ask them to remove the extra $4K from your account, and ask for whatever else you want. Send the letter to them with a return receipt requested, or even registered mail. That will prevent them from claiming they didn't get it. And it will show them you're serious. Write a cover letter admitting your default, saying you relied on their negotiation to set things straight, and saying you're dismayed they aren't sticking to their word. The cover letter should ask for help sorting this out. Send copies of the letter with the cover letter to: Be sure to mark your letter to OSCEOLA \"\"cc\"\" all these folks, so they know you are asking for help. It can't hurt to call your congressional representative's office and ask to whom you should send the letter, and then address it by name. This is called Constituent Service, and they take pride in it. If you send this letter with copies you're letting them know you intend to fight. The collection agency may decide it's not worth the fight to get the $4K and decide to let it go. Again, if they call to pressure you, say you'd rather communicate in writing, and that they are not to call you by telephone. Then hang up. Should I hire a lawyer? Yes, but only if you get a court summons or if you don't get anywhere with this. You can give the lawyer all this paperwork I've suggested here, and it will help her come up to speed on your case. This is the kind of stuff the lawyer would do for you at well over $100 per hour. Is bankruptcy really an option Certainly not, unfortunately. Never forget that student lenders and their collection agencies are dangerous and clever predators. You are their lawful prey. They look at you, lick their chops, and think, \"\"food.\"\" Watch John Oliver's takedown of that industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxUAntt1z2c Good luck and stay safe.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dc49b86aa304001fc0f24f29ec4a013", "text": "\"Is it common in the US not to pay medical bills? Or do I misunderstood what had been said? I would feel comfortable saying that most people who face medical bills don't pay them. They are unable. If they were able, they would have gotten medical insurance. In America, something like 55% of individuals do not have even $500 of savings, so when a big medical bill rolls in especially on top of lost work hours, they don't have a lot of options. Hospitals charge reasonable prices to insurance companies and Medicare. These fees are negotiated in advance and reflect the hospital's actual costs. This is called \"\"usual, reasonable and customary\"\". Hospitals charge a wildly inflated, criminally outrageous \"\"cash price\"\" to the uninsured. For instance back when Medicare paid about $175 for an ambulance ride, a friend was billed $1100 for the exact same thing. The hospital aims to scare the living daylights out of the patient (caring nothing about what that does to their health!) Perfect world, the patient pays them the $1100 instead of paying their rent. If the patient puts up a fight, they hope to haggle them down to something like $400, remember it really costs $175. This tactic is a huge profit-center for hospitals, even the \"\"charity\"\" hospitals, and they feel justified because so many uninsured don't pay at all (the hospital considers them \"\"deadbeats\"\".) Well, patients don't pay because cash prices are unreachable, so they just give up. Anyway, your friends are correct, don't even think of paying those cash billing amounts. Research and find out what Medicare pays, offer 60% of that, and haggle it to 100%. And sleep well knowing you paid what is fair. Not all services are as overpriced as my example, but most are at least 50% too high. The hospital does send you all the bills as a formality, even while they submit them to your insurance company. And then the insurance company usually pays them, so it is correct to \"\"not pay that bill\"\". A lot of medical offices will check with your insurance company even before you leave the office, and ask you to immediately pay anything the insurance won't cover. For instance they often have \"\"co-pays\"\" where you pay $20 and they pay the rest. To be clear: if your insurance company negotiates a rate with the hospital, say $185 for the ambulance ride, that is your price, which you are entitled to as a member of that insurance system. A lot of people get their livelihood from the inefficiency in medical insurance and billing. Their political power is why it's so hard for America to install a simpler system (or even replace Obamacare in an ideal political environment). It is also a big part of why America spends 18% of GDP on healthcare instead of 7-11% like our European peers who do not have to account for every gauze or rebill multiple insurers. Sorting out \"\"who pays\"\" would be expensive even if everyone did pay.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "109f79ddb1608c4f2afbaa19e4ee08cc", "text": "To me this is a simple cost/benefit analysis... I'm guessing you will spend a whole lot more time and effort trying to fight the collection agency than the $55 is worth. In this case I would just go ahead, pay it and be done with it. Had the amount been higher, this would change. But that's me; you should do your own analysis based on your circumstances (including how much it's worth to you to be right) and let that inform your decision.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b6e498c8dba48fc427faf5f1009f65f", "text": "\"The first thing you should do is write a letter to the collection company telling them that you dispute all charges and demand, per section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, that they immediately validate and confirm any and all debts they allege you owe. You should further request that that they only communicate with you by mail. Section 809 requires them to examine the legal documents showing you allegedly owe a debt and they are required to send this to you. This all creates a useful paper trail. When you send the letter, be sure to send it as certified mail with a return receipt. From your description, it doesn't sound like this will do anything, but it's important you do it within 30 days of them contacting you. This is because the law allows them to assume the debt is valid if you don't do it within 30 days of their initial contact. I recommend you speak with an attorney. Most states have a statute of limitation on debt of about 4 or 5 years. I don't know if that applies to courts though. Whatever you do, be very careful of the language you use when speaking with them. Always refer to it as \"\"the alleged debt,\"\" or \"\"the debt you allege I owe.\"\" You don't want them misconstruing your words later on. As far as proving you paid it, I would look through every scrap of paper I'd ever touched looking for it. If that proves fruitless, try going to the courthouse and looking through their records. If they're saying you didn't pay, that's a long shot, but still worth a try. You could also try bank records from that time, like if you have a Visa statement showing $276.17 paid to the Nevada Court or something like that. If all else fails, the law allows you to send the collector a letter saying that you refuse to pay the debt. The collection company then legally must stop contacting you unless it's to tell you they are suing you or to tell you they won't contact you again. I strongly advise against this though. Your best bet is going to be speaking with a qualified attorney. Edit: You should also pull your credit reports to make sure this isn't being reported there. Federal law gives you the right to have a free copy of each of your credit reports once every year. If it is being reported, send a certified letter with return receipt to each bureau which is reporting it telling them you dispute the information. They then are required to confirm the information. If they can't confirm it, they must remove it. If they do confirm it, you are legally entitled to put a statement disputing the information next to it on your credit report. I am not an attorney. This is not legal advise. You should consult an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your particular jurisdiction.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2e19aa7de5566d8a29671be19184800", "text": "\"I am looking at a 1040A. Line 11a asks for total IRA distributions. 11b asks for the taxable amount. Enter \"\"QCD\"\" as explanation and remove the Qualified Charitable Deduction amount from 11a to get 11b which is added to your income if there's any positive balance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6913c3128a087e10f462defd06dd3ae5", "text": "\"Great. 10% of the pre-tax 450 you'd make in a week of 40 hours' work means you could buy about 2 shares a month. I assume they pay bi-weekly, so you can qualify to buy a share. 25% 401k contribution off less than 30k annual salary is peanuts to the company, and peanuts to the employee by retirement. Competitively speaking, thats actually a rather bare-bones retirement package, isn't it? I hope that health care waves covers deductables 100% - otherwise a yearly checkup will be 10% of your takehome that week in addition to the hours you take off work and get \"\"points\"\" under their draconian \"\"no days off ever\"\" policy.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c46d8bcd94ab95d64b72c1aca719125c	What are the benefits to underwriters in a secondary offering?	[ { "docid": "ce8990841beccdcdb14c77381c273494", "text": "Your impression about banks and bankers is very wrong. Wall street banks can and often do lose in transactions. In fact, banks go bankrupt and/or require massive bailouts to survive because they sometimes lose a ton of money. The business of investment banking often involves bearing risk for customers, which, by definition, means they lose some of the time. Generally the risks they take on individual transactions are not large enough to bring the whole bank down, but sometimes they are. Banking is a job like any other, except that it has more risk than most. Anyway, to your point, how do underwriters make money on shares that fall in value before the sale? On the commission. The issuing company will normally pay the investment bank a percentage of the funds raised in the offering, regardless of the price. Of course, it's possible for the bank to still lose money if their contract stipulates a minimum price and they are not able to meet it. In that case, the bank may lose on that offering, contradicting your preconceived notion. By the way, one other question implicit in your post: Why was the secondary offering considered bad news? If the CEO and other insiders have private information that indicates that the stock is overvalued, then doing a secondary offering at the inflated price will greatly enrich them. Because this happens some times, investors are wary about secondary offerings. This makes companies that would otherwise do a secondary offering shy away from it, even if shares are not overpriced. Therefore if a company is doing a secondary offering, the market is likely to worry that the stock is overvalued even at a reduced price.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9e3ff70d673ea0b90ebb4dfad1c9e4e6", "text": "I didn't say only the IPO I just said public offerings. Trades between secondary investors would be taxed at a higher level. I also understand the difference between loaning money to a company and investing in equity. Personally I think that loans are underused in today's investment world because people are too focused on getting the most out of the few big winners.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1343c7ed17d2c9d9ea47022e828c951c", "text": "Not sure of the question here if by IPO(initial public offering) you mean private company then: A company can invest its excess money into other companies, to earn returns. Also a company that is private can attract private investment if the sector is doing well on publicly traded markets. Finally a company can diversify away risk, by holding shares of a company that would benefit in the event of a disruption in their own industry.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc9736300627a5a9469e0cc63d941993", "text": "As someone who has worked for both an insurance carrier and an insurance agent, the reason people buy insurance is two fold: to spread risk out, and to get the benefits (when applicable) of approaching risk as a group. What you are really doing when you buy insurance is you are buying in to a large group of people who are sharing risk. You put money in that will help people when they take a loss, and in exchange get a promise of having your losses covered. There is an administrative fee taken by the company that runs the group in order to cover their costs of doing business and their profits that they get for running the group well (or losses they take if they run it poorly.) Some insurances are for profit, some are non-profit; all work on the principle of spreading risk around though and taking risk as a larger group. So let's take a closer look at each of the advantages you get from participating in insurance. The biggest and most obvious is the protection from catastrophic loss. Yes, you could self-insure with a group size of one, by saving your money and having no overhead (other than your time and the time value of your money) but that has a cost in itself and also doesn't cover you against risk up front if you aren't already independently wealthy. A run of bad luck could wipe you out entirely since you don't have a large group to spread the risk around. The same thing can still happen to insurance companies as well when the group as a whole takes major losses, but it's less likely to occur because there are more rare things that have to go wrong. You pay an administrative overhead for the group to be run for you, but you have less exposure to your own risks in exchange for a small premium. Another significant but less visible advantage is the benefit of being part of a large group. Insurance companies represent a large group of people and lots of business, so they can get better rates on dealing with recovering from losses. They can negotiate for better health care rates or better repair rates or cheaper replacement parts. This can potentially save more than the administrative overhead and profit that they take off the top, even when compared to self-insuring. There is an element of gambling to it, but there are also very real financial benefits to having predictable costs. The value of that predictability (and the lesser need for liquid assets) is what makes insurance worth it for many people. The value of this group benefit does decrease a lot as the value of the insurance coverage (the amount it pays out) decreases. Insurance for minor losses has a much smaller impact on liquidity and is much easier to self insure. Cheaper items that have insurance also tend to be high risk items, so the costs tend to be very high relative to the amount of protection. If you are financially able, it may make more sense to self-insure in these cases, particularly if you tend to be more cautious. It may make sense for those who are more prone to accidents with their devices to buy insurance, but this selection bias also drives the cost up further. Generally, the reason to buy insurance on something like a cellphone is because you expect you will break it. You are going to end up paying for an entire additional phone over time anyway and most such policies stop paying out after the first replacement anyway. The reason why people buy the coverage anyway, even when it really isn't in their best interest is due to two factors: being risk averse, as base64 pointed out, and also being generally bad at dealing with large numbers. On the risk averse side, they think of how much they are spending on the item (even if it is less compared to large items like cars or houses) and don't want to lose that. On the bad at dealing with large numbers side, they don't think about the overall cost of the coverage and don't read the fine print as to what they are actually getting coverage for. (This is the same reason that you always see prices one cent under the dollar.) People often don't really subconsciously get that they are paying more even if they would be able to eat the loss, so they pay what feels like a small amount to offset a large risk. The risk of loss is a higher fear than the known small, easy payment that keeps the risk away and the overall value proposition isn't even considered.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96aefa42c9120412e688d4e47ccabd3c", "text": "Street name is not what you think it is in the question. The broker is the owner in street name. There is no external secondary owner information. I don't know if there is available independent verification, but if the broker is in the US and they go out of business suddenly, you can make a claim to the SIPC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3542af0fa7a035b01c65284f3a39088", "text": "Investment banks don't have to buy anything. If they don't think the stock is worth buying - they won't. If they think it is - others on the secondary market will probably think so too. Initial public offering is offering to the public - i.e.: theoretically anyone can participate and purchase stocks. The major investment firms are not buying the stocks for themselves - but for their clients who are participating in this IPO. I, for example, receive email notifications from my brokerage firm each time there's another IPO that they have access to, and I can ask the brokerage to buy stocks from the IPO on my behalf. When that happens - they don't buy the stocks themselves and then sell to me. No, what happens is that I buy a stock, through them, and they charge me a commission for the service. Usually IPO participation commissions are higher than regular trading commissions. Most of the time those who purchase stocks at IPO are institutional investors - i.e.: mutual funds, pension plans, investment banks for their managed accounts, etc. Retail investors would probably not participate in the IPO because of the costs, limited access (not all the brokerage firms have access to all the IPOs), and the uncertainty, and rather purchase the stocks later on a secondary market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abe1bdfd75ae3be1ffe8588abac21765", "text": "This situation sounds better than most, the company it seems likely to be profitable in the future. As such it is a good candidate to have a successful IPO. With that your stock options are likely to be worth something. How much of that is your share is likely to be very small. The workers that have been their since the beginning, the venture capitalist, and the founders will make the majority of profits from an IPO or sale. Since you and others hired at a similar time as you are assuming almost no risk it is fair that your share of the take is small. Despite being 1/130 employees expect your share of the profits to be much smaller than .77%. How about we go with .01%? Lets also assume that they go public in 2.5 years and that revenues during that time continue to increase by about 25M/year. Profit margins remains the same. So revenues to 112M, profits to 22.5M. Typically the goal for business is to pay no more than 5 times profits, that could be supplanted by other factors, but let's assume that figure. So about 112M from the IPO. So .01% of that is about 11K. That feels about right. Keep in mind there would be underwriting fees, and also I would discount that figure for things that could go wrong. I'd be at about 5K. That would be my expected value figure, 5K. I'd also understand that there is a very small likelihood that I receive that amount. The value received is more likely to be zero, or enough to buy a Ferarri. There might also be some value in getting to know these people. If this fails will their next venture be a success. In my own life, I went to work for a company that looked great on paper that just turned out to be a bust. Great concept, horrible management, and within a couple of years of being hired, the company went bust. I worked like a dog for nothing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1b1556891c640ff506cac3ad191e843", "text": "Investopedia has a nice article on this here The Key benefit looks like better returns with lower capital. The disadvantage is few brokers offering that can be trusted. Potentially lower return due to margins / spreads. Higher leverage and can become an issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cf826e207e5f01ea2e94f901200987e", "text": "\"When there is a trade the shares were both bought and sold. In any trade on the secondary market there has to be both a buyer and a seller for the trade to take place. So in \"\"lasttradesize\"\" a buyer has bought the shares from a seller.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f86a8a4bb3fa8d170e7d2cb5f67b104", "text": "Thanks for your thorough reply. Basically, I found a case study in one of my old finance workbooks from school and am trying to complete it. So it's not entirely complicated in the sense of a full LBO or merger model. That being said, the information that they provide is Year 1 EBITDA for TargetCo and BuyerCo and a Pro-Forma EBITDA for the consolidated company @ Year 1 and Year 4 (expected IPO). I was able to get the Pre-Money and Post-Money values and the Liquidation values (year 4 IPO), as well as the number of shares. I can use EBITDA to get EPS (ebitda/share in this case) for both consolidated and stand-alone @ Year 1, but can only get EPS for consolidated for all other years. Given the information provided. One of the questions I have is do I do anything with my liquidation values for an accretion/dilution analysis or is it all EPS?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "104d9230bb7c2710413f9a8b3498be85", "text": "\"If you participate in an IPO, you specify how many shares you're willing to buy and the maximum price you're willing to pay. All the investors who are actually sold the shares get them at the same price, and the entity managing the IPO will generally try to sell the shares for the highest price they can get. Whether or not you actually get the shares is a function of how many your broker gets and how your broker distributes them - which can be completely arbitrary if your broker feels like it. The price that the market is willing to pay afterward is usually a little higher. To a certain extent, this is by design: a good deal for the shares is an incentive for the big (million/billion-dollar) financiers who will take on a good bit of risk buying very large positions in the company (which they can't flip at the higher price, because they'd flood the market with their shares and send the price down). If the stock soars 100% and sticks around that level, though, the underwriting bank isn't doing its job very well: Investors were willing to give the company a lot more money. It's not \"\"stealing\"\", but it's definitely giving the original owners of the company a raw deal. (Just to be clear: it's the existing company's owners who suffer, not any third party.) Of course, LinkedIn was estimated to IPO at $30 before they hiked it to $45, and plenty of people were skeptical about it pricing so high even then, so it's not like they didn't try. And there's a variety of analysis out there about why it soared so much on the first day - fewer shares offered, wild speculative bubbles, no one could get a hold of it to short-sell, et cetera. They probably could have IPO'd for more, but it's unlikely there was, say, $120/share financing available: just because one sucker will pay the price doesn't mean you can move all 7.84 million IPO shares for it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1fd26ee58a9ba5d07e635ce82827285", "text": "Good questions. I can only add that it may be valuable if the company is bought, they may buy the options. Happened to me in previous company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8177505fb3f012694faa2ced7ad40d4d", "text": "\"There are a few questions that need qualification, and a bit on the understanding of what is being 'purchased'. There are two axioms that require re-iteraton, Death, and Taxes. Now, The First is eventually inevitable, as most people will eventually die. It depends what is happening now, that determines what will happen tomorrow, and the concept of certainty. The Second Is a pay as you go plan. If you are contemplating what will heppen tomorrow, you have to look at what types of \"\"Insurance\"\" are available, and why they were invented in the first place. The High seas can be a rough travelling ground, and Not every shipment of goods and passengers arrived on time, and one piece. This was the origin of \"\"insurance\"\", when speculators would gamble on the safe arrival of a ship laden with goods, at the destination, and for this they received a 'cut' on the value of the goods shipped. Thus the concept of 'Underwriting', and the VALUE associated with the cargo, and the method of transport. Based on an example gallion of good repair and a well seasoned Captain and crew, a lower rate of 'insurance' was deemed needed, prior to shipment, than some other 'rating agency - or underwriter'. Now, I bring this up, because, it depends on the Underwriter that you choose as to the payout, and the associated Guarantee of Funds, that you will receive if you happen to need to 'collect' on the 'Insurance Contract'. In the case of 'Death Benefit' insurance, You will never see the benefit, at the end, however, while the policy is in force (The Term), it IS an Asset, that would be considered in any 'Estate Planning' exercise. First, you have to consider, your Occupation, and the incidence of death due to occupational hazards. Generally this is considered in your employment negotiations, and is either reflected in the salary, or if it is a state sponsored Employer funded, it is determined by your occupational risk, and assessed to the employer, and forms part of the 'Cost-of-doing-business', in that this component or 'Occupational Insurance' is covered by that program. The problem, is 'disability' and what is deemed the same by the experience of the particular 'Underwriter', in your location. For Death Benefits, Where there is an Accident, for Motor Vehicle Accidents (and 50,000 People in the US die annually) these are covered by Motor Vehicle Policy contracts, and vary from State to State. Check the Registrar of State Insurance Co's for your state to see who are the market leaders and the claim /payout ratios, compared to insurance in force. Depending on the particular, 'Underwiriter' there may be significant differences, and different results in premium, depending on your employer. (Warren Buffet did not Invest in GEICO, because of his benevolence to those who purchase Insurance Policies with GEICO). The original Poster mentions some paramaters such as Age, Smoking, and other 'Risk factors'.... , but does not mention the 'Soft Factors' that are not mentioned. They are, 'Risk Factors' such, as Incidence of Murder, in the region you live, the Zip Code, you live at, and the endeavours that you enjoy when you are not in your occupation. From the Time you get up in the morning, till the time you fall asleep (And then some), you are 'AT Risk' , not from a event standpoint, but from a 'Fianancial risk' standpoint. This is the reason that all of the insurance contracts, stipulate exclusions, and limits on when they will pay out. This is what is meant by the 'Soft Risk Factors', and need to be ascertained. IF you are in an occupation that has a limited exposure to getting killed 'on the job', then you will be paying a lower premium, than someone who has a high risk occupation. IT used to be that 'SkySkraper Iron Workers', had a high incidence of injury and death , but over the last 50 years, this has changed. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics lists these 10 jobs as the highest for death (per 100,000 workers). The scales tilt the other way for these occupations: (In Canada, the Cheapest Rate for Occupational Insurance is Lawyer, and Politician) So, for the rest in Sales, management etc, the national average is 3 to 3.5 depending on the region, of deaths per 100,000 employed in that occupation. So, for a 30 year old bank worker, the premium is more like a 'forced savings plan', in the sense that you are paying towards something in the future. The 'Risk of Payout' in Less than 6 months is slim. For a Logging Worker or Fisher(Men&Women) , the risk is very high that they might not return from that voyage for fish and seafood. If you partake in 'Extreme Sports' or similar risk factors, then consider getting 'Whole Term- Life' , where the premium is spread out over your working lifetime, and once you hit retirement (55 or 65) then the occupational risk is less, and the plan will payout at the age of 65, if you make it that far, and you get a partial benefit. IF you have a 'Pension Plan', then that also needs to be factored in, and be part of a compreshensive thinking on where you want to be 5 years from today.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd66ed1d90d3a1b1ed76cbf6bd7a73e4", "text": "\"In the case of an \"\"initial public offering\"\", the brokers underwriting the share issue will look at the current earnings being generated by the company and compare these to those of other competitor companies already listed in the stock market. For example, if a new telephone company is undertaking an initial public offering, then the share price of those telephone companies which are already traded on the stock market will serve as a reference for how much investors will be willing to pay for the new company's shares. If investors are willing to pay 15 times earnings for telecom shares, then this will be the benchmark used in determining the new share price. In addition, comparative growth prospects will be taken into account. Finally, the underwriter will want to see a successful sale, so they will tend to \"\"slightly under price\"\" the new shares in order to make them attractive. None of this is an exact science and we often see shares trading at a large premium to the initial offer price during the first few days of trading. More often that not, prices then settle down to something closer to the offer price. The initial price spike is usually the result of high demand for the shares by investors who believe that past examples of a price spike will repeat with this initial public offering. There will also usually be high demand for the new shares from funds that specialise in shares of the type being issued. In the case of a \"\"rights issue\"\", where an existing publicly traded company wishes to raise capital by issuing new shares, the company will price the new shares at a significant discount to the current market price. The new shares will be initially offered to existing shares holders and the discounted price is intended to encourage the existing shareholders to exercise their \"\"rights\"\" since the new shares may have the effect of diluting the value of their shares. Any shares which are not purchased by existing share holder will then be offered for sale in the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e76f8ec294f1dda50d223b9e70c6059", "text": "It makes sense for a lot of people - it's basically weather insurance. It's useful for farmers (bad weather ruining a harvest), airlines (abnormally high amount of snowstorms increasing cost of delayed flights), hotels (rain making people visit less), ski resorts (not enough snow) and other businesses that can be negatively impacted by extreme weather variations. If they systematically slightly overpay for this protection the speculator can make money on net helping these businesses reduce the volatility of their cashflows which is important because they need to pay their overhead costs every year. Edit: The derivatives themselves also allows the people selling weather insurance to hedge their exposure on the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4e5e4d432355e265639b5ac35bdbe3a", "text": "\"Banks make money on load origination fees. The \"\"points\"\" you pay or closing costs are the primary benefit to the banks. A vast majority of the time risks associated with the mortgage are sold to another party. FYI, the same is true with investment banks. In general, the transaction costs (which are ignored by modern finance theory) are the main thing running the incentives for the industry.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3814134f2240fcfbf7448672f5b5d697	Facebook buying WhatsApp for 19 Billion. How are existing shareholders affected?	[ { "docid": "d9b868a06fb178e5790de8cb625cead1", "text": "\"The answer to your question has to do with the an explanation of \"\"shares authorized, issued and outstanding.\"\" Companies, in their Articles of Incorporation, specify a maximum number of shares they are authorized to issue. For example purposes let's assume Facebook is authorized to issue 100 shares. Let's pretend they have actually issued 75 shares, but only 50 are outstanding (aka Float, i.e. freely trading stock in the market) and stock options total 25 shares. So if someone owns 1 share, what percentage of Facebook do they own? You might think 1/100, or 1%; you might think 1/75, or 1.3%; or you might think 1/50, or 2%. 2% is the answer, but only on a NON-diluted basis. So today someone who owns 1 share owns 2% of Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook announces they just issued 15 shares to Whatsapp to buy the company. Now there are 65 shares outstanding and 90 issued. Now someone who owns 1 share of Facebook own only 1/65, or 1.5% (down from 2%)! P.S. \"\"Valuation\"\" can be thought of as the price of the stock at the time of the purchase announcement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fc2a8e0d7129d86af8acc815abe54f7", "text": "It's a dilution of the ownership; the public used to own x% of Facebook and now they own less than x% of the bigger Facebook that incorporates Whatsapp (assuming that Whatsapp was completely private before). Logically, the $15 billion is allocated proportionately between the existing stockholders (x% of it for the general public, y% for Mark Zuckerberg, etc). However it doesn't really make sense to think of it that way unless Whatsapp is actually worthless. What's important are the proportions. Suppose that the newly issued shares correspond to 25% of the previous share capital. Then previously the general public owned x% out of 100%, and now they own x% out of 125%, i.e. (0.8x)% of the new share capital. Whether the actual value of those stocks has changed depends entirely on the actual value that Whatsapp adds to the old Facebook. As Dheer says, only time will tell on that one. Apart from the financial consequences, dilution is sometimes considered important because it can mean a change in influence: a significant shareholder would often be able to encourage the company to act in a certain way. With a lower percentage ownership, that influence is diminished.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "302c61b590ca3faf629e6dea9041552a", "text": "isn't it still a dilution of existing share holder stock value ? Whether this is dilution or benefit, only time will tell. The Existing value of Facebook is P, the anticipated value after Watsapp is P+Q ... it may go up or go down depending on whether it turns out to be the right decision. Plus if Facebook hadn't bought Watsapp and someone else may have bought and Facebook itself would have got diluted, just like Google Shadowed Microsoft and Facebook shadowed Google ... There are regulations in place to ensure that there is no diversion of funds and shady deals where only the management profits and others are at loss. Edit to littleadv's comments: If a company A is owned by 10 people for $ 10 with total value $100, each has 10% of the share in the said company. Now if a Company B is acquired again 10 ea with total value 100. In percentage terms everyone now owns 5% of the new combined company C. He still owns $10 worth. Just after this acquisition or some time later ...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cc527b2e33635fc6ecdfc34695297db", "text": "Of course it is a dilution of existing shareholders. When you buy milk in the supermarket - don't you feel your wallet diluted a little? You give some $$$ you get milk in return. You give some shares, you get Watsapp in return. That's why such purchases must go through certain process of approval - board of directors (shareholders' representatives) must approve it, and in some cases (don't know if in this particular) - the whole body of the shareholders vote on the deal.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5f217d3abc42166d1c23f9eb0259334e", "text": "like any share, valuing facebook requires a projection of earnings and earnings growth to arrive at a present value for the right to share in these future earnings. there are economic arguments to be had for facebook to see either a negative or positive future long term net income growth. given the uncertainty we can establish a very rough baseline value by treating it as a perpetuity (zero growth) discounted at historical equity growth rate (8%) with some very simple math. An annual net income of 900 million discounted at 8 percent in perpetuity is worth 11.25 Billion. Now, take into account the fact that tech stocks trade at an inflated PE multiple of around 3 times that of a mature company in an established industry (PE x10-20 for average stocks and anywhere between x30-60+ for tech stocks), and I would expect the market cap for this perpetuity to be around 34 Billion. A market cap of 34 billion is a share value of around 15.5, which is the point where I would take up a long position with fair confidence. I do think that the share deserves a premium for potential income growth (despite the current and potential future revenue losses) simply due to the incredibly large user base and the potential to monetize this. Of course, it wasn't worth the 22 dollar premium that IPO buyers paid but its worth something. I think there is simply too much uncertainty for me to go long in the next 6 months unless it hits 15/share which may never happen. If the company can monetize mobile and show quarterly results in the next year I would consider a long position for anywhere from 15-20 a share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31207dac18902a79982a17b6ee7fc7d9", "text": "I think the Saudi stake in Twitter has something to do with this. Edit Downvote me all you want. It doesn't make Prince Alaweed bin Talal own any less of Twitter. In 2015 his stake was valued at $1 billion and there's no doubt that number has only gone up over the last two years. http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/saudi-prince-twitter-stock/ Saudi Prince Alaweed bin Talal remains one of the largest and most important Twitter shareholders. https://www.recode.net/2016/8/11/12417064/twitter-stock-ownership-takeover-acquisition-challenges", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e1f2ae97cf0ac347907d991a0a5ea86", "text": "No, I was only partially sarcastic. The new stock sale goes to FB, not paid out to stockholders, at this point. Whether the stock is price right depends on how that investment is spent. People forget that stock is sold to generate investment capital, not to get a short-tem bump, and see who is left holding the bag. Was FB overpriced? It depends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0765778b69a0befaa7950d21c9663cf4", "text": "Anti-Facebook circlejerk continues. Where were these articles before it went public ? It makes it seem like bad for common investors when in reality they couldn't even get in on the stock. It was the institutional funds and connected investors who bought the stock at 38. The common market actually was the one that didn't support the stock once it went public. If anyone, it's the institutional funds that got screwed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0fb36029eb1131f806287710d316031", "text": "First: the question is irrelevant for purchases on exchange, mostly. Majority of sales on stock exchanges is between shareholders. If however you buy directly from the company (in a IPO, or direct share purchase program of some kind, like ESPP), then it does end up showing in the company account ledgers one way or another. It then become part of company's total assets, and the newly sold shares add to the equity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ada391b851e4f03449e58bdfff9259c", "text": "\"Many thanks for thedetailed response, appreciate it. But I am still not clear on the distinction between a public company and the equity holders. Isn't a public company = shareholders + equity holders? Or do you mean \"\"company\"\" = shareholders+equity holders + debt holders?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18ce58c8902a64eca070d530a060fd2a", "text": "From my understanding, only A and B are shareholders, and M is a managing entity that takes commission on the profit. Assuming that's true. At the start of the project, A contributes $500,000. At this point, A is the sole shareholder, owning 100% of the project that's valued at $500,000. The real question is, did the value of the project change when B contributed 3 month later. If the value didn't change, then A owns 33.33%, and B owns 66.66%. Assuming both A and B wants to pay themselves with the $800,000 profit, then A gets a third of that, and B gets the rest. However, if at the time of B's contribution, both parties agreed that the pre-money of the project has changed to $1 million, then B owns half the project valued at 2 million post-money. Then the profit would be split half way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40e08223ac41fd50cdae1dcf1e7cebc1", "text": "The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc596ab411b839e7fddc66f3efd63334", "text": "Various types of corporate actions will precipitate a price adjustment. In the case of dividends, the cash that will be paid out as a dividend to share holders forms part of a company's equity. Once the company pays a dividend, that cash is no longer part of the company's equity and the share price is adjusted accordingly. For example, if Apple is trading at $101 per share at the close of business on the day prior to going ex-dividend, and a dividend of $1 per share has been declared, then the closing price will be adjusted by $1 to give a closing quote of $100. Although the dividend is not paid out until the dividend pay date, the share price is adjusted at the close of business on the day prior to the ex-dividend date since any new purchases on or after the ex-dividend date are not entitled to receive the dividend distribution, so in effect new purchases are buying on the basis of a reduced equity. It will be the exchange providing the quote that performs the price adjustment, not Google or Yahoo. The exchange will perform the adjustment at the close prior to each ex-dividend date, so when you are looking at historical data you are looking at price data that includes each adjustment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83a2cd1d21f6b2b537b411e87e0e262d", "text": "As part of this acquisition 96% of the shareholders accepted an offer for their shares This means that most of the shareholder agreed for the sale. If this was less than specified percentage, the deal would not have gone through. To make it easier, there were 2 options present to shareholder, full exchange of shares of Infinera or part shares and part cash. I failed to do so as I was unwell at the time So you cannot now choose the option. There will be a default option of getting the equivalent shares in Infinera. What options are available to me now? Contact Infinera investor relations and ask them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "245c6412e627b81c78a18953c8fa3e06", "text": "Another form of 'shareholder' activism. You might be able to buy a single share, which it seems would cost around $35, attend the AGM, and ask questions and/or shout or sing and delay proceedings. There would certainly be security guards or police ready to remove protesters at an AGM.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9d078018380bf6a6a8f2211d217c6a3", "text": "Is it normal for such transactions to create new outstanding shares? Yes a company can create new shares or a Majority share holder can sell some of his stake or it can be a mix of both. how will this news affect the short-term and long-term price of the company's stock? This is opinion based and not apt for this site. It can be positive or negative depending on how the market reacts to the news.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a26da9e8aaa057b993b4972726e78b83", "text": "For each class A share (GOOGL) there's a class C share (GOOG), hence the missing half in your calculation. The almost comes from the slightly higher market price of the class A shares (due to them having voting powers) over class C (which have no voting powers). There's also class B share which is owned by the founders (Larry, Sergei, Eric and perhaps some to Stanford University and others) and differs from class A by the voting power. These are not publicly traded.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81ce9db9c61314068fbcd22e5b43680a", "text": "Oh, I see what you mean. It depends which side you look at it from: the company, or the individual investor. For the individual investor, I guess it doesn't matter. As you said, you only buy the amount of stocks you can afford. What matters afterwards is whether the price of your stocks goes up or down. That's when the company valuation comes into play. If a company is overvalued, the stock prices are going to go down until they reach the [equilibrium point](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium). Or, rephrasing, stocks go down when more people will want to sell than buy, creating an excess supply, so sellers will be willing to offer lower prices so you buy from them. Stocks go up when the opposite happens, more people will want to buy than sell, so buyers will have to offer more money to convince sellers to sell. In essence, Facebook was overvalued, and not enough people were buying their shares, creating excess supply, so, sellers had to offer lower prices. Had Facebook been properly valued, people would've felt the stocks were a good price, everyone would've rushed to purchase, and stock prices would've gone up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33c4560b76832e7d47039ea8fd60d3ce", "text": "Facebook the company is probably better understood as a capital good - it is a collection of software and servers and a well-known brand name with a snazzy network effect under reasonably competent corporate governance that can produce final goods and services (mostly services) that actually have value. A share of Facebook stock is a share of ownership in that capital. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_good which makes some concessions for the difference between capital goods and capital services, so it's kind of a fuzzy thing.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
858028f11f511da8c3a9f23c156141cd	Remote jobs and incidental wage costs: What do I have to consider?	[ { "docid": "aa534b85bc1b330283961134171101c9", "text": "In the US we have social security taxes, where for a full time employee the company pays half and the employee pays half. When you work as a business, what we call 1099 for the form that the wages are reported on, then the contractor pays the full amount of social security tax. There are times when a contractor can negotiate a higher rate because the company does not have to pay that tax. However, most of the time the company just prefers to negotiate the rate based on your value. If you are a 60K year guy, then that is what they will pay you. From the company's perspective it does not matter what your tax rate is, only the value you can bring to the company. If you can add about 180K to the bottom line, then they will be happy to pay you 60K, and you should be happy to get it. Here in the US a contractor can expect to make about 7.5% more of an equivalent employee because of the social security tax savings to the company. However, not all companies are willing to provide that in compensation. Some companies see the legal and administrative costs of employees as normal, and the same costs with contractors as extra so they don't perceive a cost savings. There are other things that would preclude employers from giving the bump although it is logical to do so. First you will really have to feel out your employer for the attitude on the subject. Then I would make a logical case if they are open to providing extra compensation in return for tax savings. If I am an employee at 60K, you would also have to pay the government 18K. How about you pay me 75K as a contractor instead? That would be a great deal for all in the US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4c7fbfbffb316b658ac89d85ce4b9d6", "text": "\"An employee costs the company in four ways: Salary, taxes, benefits, and capital. Salary: The obvious one, what they pay you. Taxes: There are several taxes that an employer has to pay for the privilege of hiring someone, including social security taxes (which goes to your retirement), unemployment insurance tax (your unemployment benefits if they lay you off), and workers compensation tax (pays if you are injured on the job). (There may be other taxes that I'm not thinking of, but in any case those are the main ones.) Benefits: In the U.S. employers often pay for medical insurance, sometimes for dental, life, and disability. There's usually some sort of retirement plan. They expect to give you some number of vacation days, holidays, and sick days where they pay you even though you're not working. Companies sometimes offer other benefits, like discounts on buying company products, membership in health clubs, etc. Capital: Often the company has to provide you with some sort of equipment, like a computer; furniture, like a chair and desk; etc. As far as the company is concerned, all of the above are part of the cost of having you as an employee. If they would pay a domestic employee $60,000 in salary and $20,000 in taxes, then assuming the same benefits and capital investment, if a foreign employee would cost them $0 in taxes they should logically be willing to pay $80,000. Any big company will have accountants who figure out the total cost of a new employee in excruciating detail, and they will likely be totally rational about this. A smaller company might think, \"\"well, taxes don't really count ...\"\" This is irrational but people are not always rational. I don't know what benefits they are offering you, if any, and what equipment they will provide you with, if any. I also don't know what taxes, if any, a U.S. company has to pay when hiring a remote employee in a foreign country. If anybody on here knows the answer to that, please chime in. Balanced against that, the company likely sees disadvantages to hiring a foreign remote employee, too. Communication will be more difficult, which may result in inefficiency. My previous employer used some contractors in India and while there were certainly advantages, the language and time zone issues caused difficulties. There are almost certainly some international bureaucratic inconveniences they will have to deal with. Etc. So while you should certainly calculate what it would cost them to have a domestic employee doing the same job, that's not necessarily the end of the story. And ultimately it all comes down to negotiations. Even if the company knows that by the time they add in taxes and benefits and whatever, a domestic employee will cost them $100,000 a year, if they are absolutely convinced that they should be able to hire an Austrian for $60,000 a year, that might be the best offer you will get. You can point out the cost savings, and maybe they will concede the point and maybe not.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1ba79cc552d47f900a08881f2c79d879", "text": "You can deduct this if the main purpose of the trip is to attend the seminar. Travel expenses relating to the attendance at conferences, seminars and other work-related events are deductible to the extent that they relate to your income-producing activities. You will need to apportion your travel expenses where you undertake both work-related and private activities. Travel costs to and from the location of the work-related event will only be deductible where the primary purpose of the travel was to attend the event. Accommodation, food and other incidental costs must be apportioned between work-related and private activities taking into account the types of activities that you did on the day you incurred the cost. You might like to consider in advance what you would tell them if they questioned this - for instance you might say (if they are true):", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5cbb996244fc60be4ce51aa99ccabc02", "text": "The short Answer is NO, HMRC do not like disguised employment which is what this is as you fall under IR35 you can bill them via an umbrella company and you should be charging the contractor rate not a permie rate. http://www.contractoruk.com/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be8d414a0fd1c029f1c9ad663a449c4d", "text": "I do NOT know the full answer but I know here are some important factors that you need to consider : Do you have a physical location in the United States? Are you working directly from Canada? With a office/business location in the United States your tax obligation to the US is much higher. Most likely you will owe some to the state in which your business is located in Payroll Tax : your employer will likely want to look into Payroll tax, because in most states the payroll tax threshold is very low, they will need to file payroll tax on their full-time, part-time employees, as well as contractor soon as the total amount in a fiscal year exceeds the threshold Related to No.1 do you have a social security number and are you legally entitled to working in the States as an individual. You will be receiving the appropriate forms and tax withholding info Related to No.3 if you don't have that already, you may want to look into how to obtain permissions to conduct business within the United States. Technically, you are a one person consulting service provider. You may need to register with a particular state to obtain the permit. The agency will also be able to provide you with ample tax documentations. Chances are you will really need to piece together multiple information from various sources to resolve this one as the situation is specific. To start, look into consulting service / contractor work permit and tax info for the state your client is located in. Work from state level up to kick start your research then research federal level, which can be more complex as it is technically international business service for Canada-US", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f55d808ccf87a99e2a6100e95f2e63ec", "text": "\"New York State is one of a few states that will go after telecommuter taxes (such that some people may end up paying double tax even if they don't live in NY). There are a few ways that you can avoid this. If you NEVER come to NY for work, and your employer can stipulate that your position is only available to be filled remotely, you will likely be covered. But there are a myriad of factors relating to this such as whether the employer reimburses you for your home office and whether you keep \"\"business records\"\" at your office. Provided you can easily document the the factors in TSB-M-06(5)I, you shouldn't have to pay NYS taxes. (source: I've worked with a NYS tax attorney as an employer to deal with this exact scenario).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a36ebec5f995e73425f1d8eab546d735", "text": "Only if your work on the side is making you at least £60,000 profit a year. The overheads are just not worth it if you make less. Working as a sole trader, you can still claim for expenses incurred in the course of your business. You can also claim a percentage of your computer costs, even though you may use the computer for gaming. This is not unreasonable as the computer is necessary for your work. The Inland Revenue accept the fact that some assets are part work-related. In your case, as a web and mobile phone developer, I expect the percentage to be at least half, if not a lot more. If you need to travel in the course of your work you can claim a percentage for your car. You can include other small expenses such as telephone, stationery, electricity etc but don't go overboard. The important point to remember is that you must be able to defend the expenses claimed as work-related, so long as you can do this there is no problem. Remember to keep good records of all your expenses. This is on-going throughout the year and is much more work than filling out your tax return. The software on the IR self-assessment site is excellent, so it's conceivable that you may not need an accountant if you are prepared to do your own tax return. However, if you feel unsure employ an accountant initially and take it from there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72f0f7aedd28a51c993e07637b5a79c4", "text": "\"You cannot deduct commute expenses. Regarding your specific example, something to consider is that if the standard of living is higher in San Francisco, presumably the wages are higher too. Therefore, you must make a choice to trade \"\"time and some money for commuting costs\"\" for \"\"even more money\"\" in the form of higher wages. For example, if you can make $50K working 2 hours away from SF, or $80K working in SF, and it costs you $5K extra per year in commute costs, you still come out ahead by $25K (minus taxes). If it ends up costing $20K more to live in SF (due to higher rent/mortgage/food/etc), some people choose to trade 4 extra hours of commuting time to put that extra $20K in their pocket. It's sort of like having an extra part time job, except you get paid to read/watch tv/sleep on the job (assuming you can take a train to work).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0493d4f827147a296d9f105fe8748726", "text": "They might be concerned with having to charge sales tax in California if they have a single employee in California, creating a nexus situation with CA. If that's the case, or even if there is some other issue, you might be able to switch from being a W2 employee to being a 1099 independent contractor. There's a host of additional issues this could cause, but it alleviate the nexus problem (if THAT is the problem). Here's a terrible solution you can bring up, but shouldn't do under any circumstances: offer to set up a mailing address in an allowed State, and give your company plausible deniability with regards to your legal residence. Obviously, this is a terrible idea, but exploring that option with your employer would help you suss out what the actual objection is. Ultimately, anything said here about the reason is just conjecture. You need to talk to the decision maker(s) about the real reason behind the denial. Then you can talk through solutions. Also - don't forget that you can get another job. If you are serious about a future with your girlfriend, you should put that relationship ahead of your current employment comfort and security. If you are willing to walk away from your position, you are in a much better situation to negotiate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a201a3ed2c8235b382b7505053b28484", "text": "As I see it, there are 2 potential solutions - Joining with another person or 2, and buying a house with multiple bedrooms. I am in the US, and I've seen immigrants living in tight accommodations that would seem unacceptable to most of us. But, with the combined incomes, they were able to buy the house and quickly pay for it, and then buy another. $800/mo is about $5/hr. Below US minimum wage. Use your skills to take on additional work on line. A virtual assistant position can increase your income quite a bit. Keep in mind, as someone on the other side of the world, my advice may not be practical for you, these are just my thoughts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea751480073d65d4e870329fddcd427f", "text": "\"IANAL, but I had heard (and would appreciate someone more qualified commenting on this) that one reason these things were often found unenforceable is that there is no consideration. The contract is to bind you for your work each day, but once you stop working, they allege you have a continued obligation that transcends your time at the company. Claiming that your day-to-day compensation covers this is as if to say some part of that compensation is not for your work but to pay you for not going elsewhere. It would be nice to see at minimum a requirement to separate these two concepts into separate contracts as bundling them creates a blur, and most importantly doesn't allow you to negotiate or walk away from the terms of one part without the other. At the heart of any \"\"market\"\", which the job market purports to be, is a sense that a fair price is reached when both parties can walk away from a bad deal. This is not so in the case of employment because, as Adlai Stevenson said, \"\"a hungry man is not a free man\"\", so someone who needs to eat (or feed a family) has a need to take an offer that is already biasing their acceptance of work, and this quasi-duress is compounded when a company can attach additional pressures that work agains that person's ability to fairly negotiate possible improvements of what may already have been a bad situation. I'm of the impression that duress itself has been argued to be a reason to hold a contract invalid. But more abstractly and generally, any time two parties are bargaining asymmetrically (I'm not sure the legal definition, but intuitively I'd say where one party has the ability to force a contract change and the other party is not), then those terms have to be suspect. Also, for the special case the pay is anything near minimum wage, I would suggest asking the question of whether the part of the compensation that is salary, not \"\"keeping you from working for the competition\"\", is the wage paid consistent with minimum wage, or does it have to draw from the pool of money that is not about wage but is about incentivizing you to not move. And, finally, if they stop paying you, and each day you've been paid a little to work and a little to incentivize you to leave, then are you getting a continued revenue stream to continue to incentivize you not to work for the competition? If not, there would seem again not to be consideration. As I said, I'm not an expert in this. I just follow such matters sometimes in the news. But I don't see these issues getting discussed here and I hope we'll see some useful responses from the crowd here, and also the smart folks at reddit can help through their discussions to form some useful political and legal defenses to help individuals overcome what is really a moral outrage on this matter. Capitalism is an often cruel engine. I worked at a company where one of the bosses said to me, after contributing really great things that added structurally in fundamental ways to the company, \"\"don't tell me what you've done, tell me what you've done lately\"\". Capitalism makes people scrap every day to prove their worth. So it's morally an outrage to see it also trying even as it beats down the price of someone and tells them they aren't entitled to better, to tell them that they may not go somewhere else that thinks they are better. That is not competition and it is not fair. Indentured servitude, not slavery, is more technically correct. And yet it is a push to treat people like capital, so slavery is not inappropriate metaphorically. The topic is non-competes, but really it's about businesses not wanting to have to compete for employees; that is, about businesses not wanting capitalism to prevail in hiring. Sorry for the length.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc55d2f06ed16eb2a0e502d86f342e03", "text": "\"So the main reason that you aren't getting answers is that the question is not really answerable on this site without putting a lot of details about the expenses of your company online. Even then you will need someone who specializes in Canadian taxes to go through those details to be sure. Most of those people feel like they should be paid a decent amount per hour to go through the details. That being said, I dealt with a similar question for my contract work company by just taking a couple weekends and calculating the taxes myself on estimated numbers. It was time consuming but not really that hard. I thought I might have to buy software, but all I needed was a small calculator. Along the way I learned a few details that helped me lower my overall tax exposure. I found that Neil was generally correct that you are \"\"taxed on profits\"\" but it is worth doing the taxes yourself because the details can really matter.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7da7199df8c8432bfdac8dd1a739131e", "text": "No. Similar to how the hospitals now get you a social security number for your newborn, so you can leave with a little crying tax deduction, the IRS has cracked down on FSA reimbursements. They expect to be able to follow the money from your tax deduction to a nanny/sitter's income. Your last line is the choice you face, and User58220's warning shouldn't be ignored. She will need to declare the income. The tax due depends on many factors. Not reporting it can result in penalties and prosecution. The last I dealt with this, the employer required the SSN of the provider. No exceptions. You are now asking about the risk of getting caught, after already sharing that you're operating outside of the law. Sorry, I can't answer this one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27be59dd2f4445169ef9d91862353b69", "text": "It would be unusual but it is possible that the expenses could be very high compared to your income. The IRS in pub 529 explains the deduction. You can deduct only unreimbursed employee expenses that are: Paid or incurred during your tax year, For carrying on your trade or business of being an employee, and Ordinary and necessary. An expense is ordinary if it is common and accepted in your trade, business, or profession. An expense is necessary if it is appropriate and helpful to your business. An expense doesn't have to be required to be considered necessary. The next part lists examples. I have cut the list down to highlight ones that could be large. You may be able to deduct the following items as unreimbursed employee expenses. Damages paid to a former employer for breach of an employment contract. Job search expenses in your present occupation. Legal fees related to your job. Licenses and regulatory fees. Malpractice insurance premiums. Research expenses of a college professor. Rural mail carriers' vehicle expenses. Tools and supplies used in your work. Work clothes and uniforms if required and not suitable for everyday use. Work-related education. If the term of employment was only part of the year, one or more of the these could dwarf your income for the year. Before deducting something that large be sure you can document it. I believe the IRS computers would flag the return and I wouldn't be surprised if they ask for additional proof.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efde1ab1a9035da2874810c95db67d9e", "text": "\"I think you're on the right track. Your #2 journal entry is incorrect. It should be (I usually put the debit entry on top, but I followed your formatting) I'm assuming your employer uses an accountable reimbursement plan (reimbursing you when you turn in your payment bill/receipts). This is not salary. Reimbursements under the accountable plan in the US are not taxed as income. If you think about it though, \"\"phone expense\"\" isn't really your phone expense. So, instead of #1 entry, you could make an account receivable, or other current asset account, maybe call it Reimbursables - cellphone, and debit this account, and credit your cash account. When you receive the $30 back, you will reverse the entries on the day of payment. If you do it this way, you should be able to see a list of receivables outstanding (I'm not too familiar with GNUCash but I'm sure it has this type of report).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf29d354336d2585c9fbaef99b4ae97e", "text": "\"The bill proposed to \"\"Under existing law, employers may take tax deductions for the costs associated with moving jobs out of the country. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that, and used the resulting new revenue to fund a 20 percent tax credit for the costs companies run up \"\"insourcing\"\" labor back into the U.S.\"\" From http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=16816660 as found by beermethestrength. I will explain this in an example below. Lets use allen edmonds. I manufacture shoes and sell them in the US. The facts we will assume is Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Tax rate is 10%. Therefore, Profit before tax is $100 -$50 = $50. Tax is $5. Net profit is $45. However, suppose offshoring to Canada saves money. They say please and thank you at every opportunity and the positive work environment allows them to work faster. Correspondingly to make the same number of shoes our costs has decreased because we pay less for labour. The manufacturing cost decreases to $30. However, we incur costs to move such as severance payments to layoff contracted employees. (I promise to hire you and pay $1 a year for 2 years. I fire you at the end of the first year. To be fair, I pay you $1) However, it can be any legitimate expense under the sun. In this case we suppose this moving cost is $10. Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Moving cost is $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax is $100 -$40 = $60. Tax is $6. Net profit is $54. Yay more jobs for Canadians. However, the legislation would have changed this. It would have denied that moving expense if you were moving out of the country. Therefore, we cannot consider $10 worth of expenses for tax purposes. Therefore Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $30 = $70. Tax is $7. Net profit for tax purposes is $63. However, my accounting/net/real profit is $53. I must deduct the $10 associated with moving. The difference between the two scenarios is $1. In general our net profit changes by our moving cost * our tax rate. There is no tax break associated with moving. In Canadian tax, any business expense in general can be deducted as long as it is legitimate and not specifically denied. I am uncertain but would assume US tax law is similar enough. Moving expenses in general are legitimate and not specifically denied and therefore can be deducted. Offshoring and onshoring are seen as legitimate business activities as in general companies do things to increase profit. (forget about patriotism for the moment). The bill was to make offshoring more expensive and therefore fewer companies would find offshoring profitable. However, republicans defeated this bill in congress. Most likely the house For completeness let us examine what would happen when we onshore (bring jobs from canada to us :( ). In our example, silly unions demand unrealistically high wages and increase our cost of manufacturing to $50 again. We decide to move back to the US because if it is the same everywhere for the sake of silly national pride we move our jobs back to the US. We incur the same moving cost of $10. Therefore we have Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Moving cost of $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $60 = $40. Tax is $4. However, we are given a 20% tax credit for moving expense. $10 * .2 = 2. The government only assess us tax of 2. Net profit is $38. Tax credits are a one time deal so profit in the future will be $100 -$50 - $5 = $45. Same as the first example. insourcing = onshoring , outsourcing = offshoring for the purposes of this article. Not quite the same in real life.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f6eeb81832202cd9f52f40499dfb4bd", "text": "Probably means cutting the travel short. A small business owner employing specialist staff needs to identify and plan for this risk. The plan might be to personally cover for the staff until a replacement is found. Ideally in this situation the business will be able to support the salary of two staff in the role, even if one is part time or an apprentice/trainee. This is the approach our business takes with key staff.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
18ba83c53283f387a1ff06efbf1c328a	When is an IPO considered failure?	[ { "docid": "72531ea689a54ad31fcdca474bd1289f", "text": "Different stakeholders have different views of 'failure'. Maybe from Air Berlin's point of view it was a failure, but technically speaking it is not really possible to 'fail'. As long as all shares were purchased, which is a virtual guarantee since the investment banks who underwrite the IPO by and large must do to some extent, it will always be 'successful'. A decrease in value of shares immediately after IPO means that the investment bank who did the IPO for Air Berlin didn't match its IPO price with market expectations, causing shorts on the stock, and thus a decline. No failure per se.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "899c9572b9f6b04a758c21d1e283dab3", "text": "\"Just skimming through the Wikipedia article on airberlin, I notice there is more to the story than simply \"\"airberlin's IPO failed, so they postponed it and did it anyways.\"\" 3 points to keep in mind about IPOs: 1) An IPO is the mechanism for taking a private company and setting it up for shares to be owned by \"\"the public\"\". 2) The process of selling shares to the public often allows original owners and/or early investors to \"\"cash out\"\". Most countries (including member nations of the EU) limit some transactions like pre-IPO companies to \"\"accredited investors\"\". 3) Selling shares to the public also can allow the company to access more funds for growth. This is particularly important in a capital-intensive business like an airline; new B737-MAX costs >$110M. New A320neo costs >$105M USD. Ultimately, the question of a successful IPO depends on how you define success. Initially, there was a lot of concern that the IPO was set up with too much focus on goal #2... allowing the management & owners to cash out. It looks like the first approach was not meeting good opinions in the market during 2006. A major concern was that the initial approach focused on management only cashing out its shares and no money actually going to the company to support its future. The investment bankers restructured the IPO, including the issuance of more new shares so that more $ could end up in the company's accounts, not just in the accounts of the management. If anything, it's still a pretty successful IPO given that the shares were successfully listed, the company collected the money it needed to invest and grow, and the management still cashed out.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9e3ff70d673ea0b90ebb4dfad1c9e4e6", "text": "I didn't say only the IPO I just said public offerings. Trades between secondary investors would be taxed at a higher level. I also understand the difference between loaning money to a company and investing in equity. Personally I think that loans are underused in today's investment world because people are too focused on getting the most out of the few big winners.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c50091328f824305c60eb149c1725de4", "text": "In all honesty, if they truly need the funding, they didn’t have a choice unless they could get one of their strategics to pony up more money. It’s either raise capital from PE or IPO at that point. They’re not going to get a third strategic in the door, especially at that valuation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8677ffa9c1ac3a3f5bca189a6db0e873", "text": "You cannot trade in pre-IPO shares of companies like Facebook without being an accredited investor. If a website or company doesn't mention that requirement, they are a scam. A legitimate market for private shares is SecondMarket.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56e26472679528b27c870a725255aefd", "text": "Thanks chrissundberg for providing the outline of the JOBS Act. Under the current rules, my understanding is that a non-public company can have up to 35 unaccredited investors, which doesn't really work within a crowdfunding environment. Am I correct in that?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe39007b6afce2e43176aa30787fb6a6", "text": "Yes, that is correct. There is no limit. An initial public offering of common stock by a company means that these shares remain outstanding for as long as the company wishes. The exceptions are through corporate actions, most commonly either", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4820d8cf8ca3842f1c55617a87a7cdbd", "text": "That's the problem with IPOs. Professionals are very bad at valuing companies, particularly prospectively. That's Daniel Kahneman's whole point about how no one beats the market. Yet, we expect the same types of professionals who can't beat the market to set the price for the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8203d1d7cb6f6118bc9baba46f41a879", "text": "That's because they literally could not help you. It's not that they were just unwilling to. A hedge fund manager might be able to do it, because the person who bet on Facebook would be willing to let him borrow their shares. An IPO in explain like I'm five: A bank helps underwrite the shares pre offering. This means they buy the shares wholesale. They buy a large majority of the company in order to offer them to the public when the stock goes public. The bank does this for profit, the company does this become it helps raise their price. The bank that underwrites the stock is legally prohibited from short selling that stock for *at least* 30 days before the IPO. This is to prevent the bank from trying to commit fraud by selling stock out the front door and betting against it out the back. *** So, now let's jump forward to the day of the IPO. The bank is offering stock to everyone who wants to buy it (other banks who will cut it up and sell it to more people). In order to short the stock someone must be willing to let you borrow their shares. Only the bank that underwrote it prohibited from short selling. It's possible but hard. The underwriter has the majority of the shares for the first thirty days anyways. They're just going to release enough of them to raise volume on the ticker symbol (volume is the amount of people buying and selling). The others the underwriter sold to are unwilling to let someone borrow their stock because they want to ride the price hike and shares are in short supply. So while it's possible to short shares, it's very hard. The underwriters limit the supply of shares to prevent that from happening. The underwriters can't just let you short their own shares because they are legally prohibited from it. Basically, you're left with the fact that the only person who has enough supply to let you short, is prohibited by law from letting you do it. I'm sure Morgan Stanley would have been happy to let their customers short Facebook (as long as you did it through them) to hedge their bets. But they can't.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "405279b2a7eb44babb0ab829e734ed52", "text": "\"Check your broker's IPO list. Adding a new stock to a stock exchange is called \"\"Initial Public Offering\"\" (IPO), and most brokers have a list of upcoming IPO's in which their clients can participate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0711ce03a072199a112fbede8dba65ce", "text": "> I still think there should be some kind of rule in place that an IPO has to reflect a companies actual value. The value of a company is it's price. Really hard to determine that beforehand. ∑(assets) doesn't determine the value of a company (otherwise most software companies would be near valueless)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "537fe4429469a56a85183cb3273bbacf", "text": "Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days. Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site : Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months. (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c02e02b4ea2ebb89c894b4ad90e5f149", "text": "It's generally the hype that blinds them. Unfortunately, as rare as it happens on the scale of the FB IPO - it shouldn't happen at all. But then again, if everyone was well educated, informed and risk averse - we wouldn't have losers in the market. Everyone can't keep winning forever!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a27d3608ee5ee741952a041249e941d", "text": "Only on an accounting basis. The moment they start selling, it would plunge. Take a look at all the small float tech IPOs. Big pop, but once the lockup period ends, it drops 50% as insiders sell. In the end, fundamentals will rule. Facebook managed to unload a quarter of the company at the vastly inflated $38, which is very impressive. The other tech IPOs typically sell less than 10%, because selling more would lead to very low share prices. Remember, these guys are not retail investors selling 100 shares. The ticker shows the price of the last block of shares that was traded, but when someone tries to sell a couple million shares, then it will plunge.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "934ef0bc0a19ea24509fa1f5c7af0b94", "text": "In my original question, I was wondering if there was a mathematical convention to help in deciding on whether an equity offering OR debt offering would be a better choice. I should have clarified better in the question, I used Vs. which may have made it unclear.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5086efd0c1f4936413785a86e2270d6e", "text": "OK, were there any fund managers stupid enough to bet on Facebook? If there are, they should all be out of jobs by now. (They won't be, but they should.) Facebook was a bad investment on paper, on hype, and on fundamentals. There was no reasonable expectation of it going up on IPO.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4917644ac25db5760fc2f94f195a2290", "text": "\"Fail? What is the standard? If you include the base case of keeping your money under a mattress, then you only have to earn a $1 over your lifetime of investing to not fail. What about making more by investing when compared to keeping money in a checking or savings account? How could 90% of investors fail to achieve these standards? Update: with the hint from the OP to google \"\"90% investors lose their money\"\" it is clear that \"\"experts\"\" on complex trading systems are claiming that the 90% of the people that try similar systems, fail to make money. Therefore try their system, for a fee. The statements are being made by people who have what should be an obvious bias.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7c97036482346ec23d09550f6adabeb5	What are the tax liabilities for an Indian citizen working in the US?	[ { "docid": "f431551f93c52c2a7b9bb42ffb59e679", "text": "Tax liability in US: You would need to determine if you are a resident alien or non resident alien. Resident alien are taxed normally as per US citizens. For the annual remuneration you have quoted it would be in the range of 25%. Refer http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm To determine if you are resident alien or non resident alien, you need to be present for certain period in US. There is also an exemption even if you meet this you can still be treated as non resident alien if your tax home is outside US [India in this case] Refer to the link for details to determine your category, the durations are for number of days in financial year, hence it matters when you are in US and the exact durations. http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html Also note that if you are assessed as resident alien, even the income from India will be taxed in US unless you declare there is no income in India. Tax liability in India: The tax liability in India would be depending on your NRI status. This again is tied to the financial year and the number of days you are in country. While the year you are going out of India you need to be away for atleast 183 days for you be considred are NRI. So if you are treated as Indian resident, you would have to pay tax in India on entire income. In the worst case, depending on the period you travel and the dates you travel, you could get classified as citizen in US as well as India and have to pay tax at both places. India and US do not have a dual tax avoidance treaty for individuals. Its there for certain category like small business and certain professions like teacher, research etc.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ca8e1d390f305f11925283dd73345691", "text": "\"Can I claim a 20% of the interest paid over the period of Oct/2015 through Mar/2017 (18 months) when I file for IT returns this year in Mar/2017? Yes you can. Does my name not being the first name affect my eligibility of claiming the relief? No you can claim relief. Joint owners need to file a declaration on the quantum of relief claimed. Both can't claim 100%. Does that mean I my claiming the 20% relief on interest (and the remaining 80% over subsequent years) is in effect moot as my \"\"taxable\"\" income cannot go negative (meaning the govt cannot/will not return some money I have paid as IT in prior years)? If you have no other income on which tax is payable; then Yes it is irrelevant. Does that mean as long as I continue to work in the US (already having become a NRI), have little or no income in India, I cannot claim any future relief regarding the principal or interest? Yes that is right.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "698111cd921bcfd014d15bcf5d87ae5c", "text": "Many states have a simple method for assessing income tax on nonresidents. If you have $X income in State A where you claim nonresident status and $Y income overall, then you owe State A a fraction (X/Y) of the income tax that would have been due on $Y income had you been a resident of State A. In other words, compute the state income tax on $Y as per State A rules, and send us (X/Y) of that amount. If you are a resident of State B, then State B will tax you on $Y but give you some credit for taxes paid to State A. Thus, you might be required to file a State A income tax return regardless of how small $X is. As a practical matter, many commercial real-estate investments are set up as limited partnerships in which most of the annual taxable income is a small amount of portfolio income (usually interest income that you report on Schedule B of Form 1040), and the annual bottom line is lots of passive losses which the limited partners report (but do not get to deduct) on the Federal return. As a result, State A is unlikely to come after you for the tax on, say, $100 of interest income each year because it will cost them more to go after you than they will recover from you. But, when the real estate is sold, there will (hopefully) be a big capital gain, most of which will be sheltered from Federal tax since the passive losses finally get to be deducted. At this point, State A is not only owed a lot of money (it knows nothing of your passive losses etc) but, after it processes the income tax return that you filed for that year, it will likely demand that you file income tax returns for previous years as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "692b3a6e94da9825253cac3d88d26304", "text": "\"Taxability depends on residential status when the $ were earned. If it was earned during his status as \"\"Non-Resident\"\" in India, then its tax free. If the money was earned when his tax status was resident in India, then its taxable as per the tax bracket. Edit: Taxability does not depend on whether to transfer the money into India, or keep it out of India or bring it as Cash or Electronically. It only depends on NRI status. Of course transferring the funds into NRE makes the paperwork simpler in case there is a scrutiny.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be8d414a0fd1c029f1c9ad663a449c4d", "text": "I do NOT know the full answer but I know here are some important factors that you need to consider : Do you have a physical location in the United States? Are you working directly from Canada? With a office/business location in the United States your tax obligation to the US is much higher. Most likely you will owe some to the state in which your business is located in Payroll Tax : your employer will likely want to look into Payroll tax, because in most states the payroll tax threshold is very low, they will need to file payroll tax on their full-time, part-time employees, as well as contractor soon as the total amount in a fiscal year exceeds the threshold Related to No.1 do you have a social security number and are you legally entitled to working in the States as an individual. You will be receiving the appropriate forms and tax withholding info Related to No.3 if you don't have that already, you may want to look into how to obtain permissions to conduct business within the United States. Technically, you are a one person consulting service provider. You may need to register with a particular state to obtain the permit. The agency will also be able to provide you with ample tax documentations. Chances are you will really need to piece together multiple information from various sources to resolve this one as the situation is specific. To start, look into consulting service / contractor work permit and tax info for the state your client is located in. Work from state level up to kick start your research then research federal level, which can be more complex as it is technically international business service for Canada-US", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7a7211d3254b4fafbb25b85d82701e5", "text": "Your federal taxes in US include the tax which Indian government wants back from you under the treaty with US government. Some countries have treaty with US where all the money person earns in US can be reclaimed at the end of the financial year i.e no money goes to the country of citizenship. However, Indian citizens working in US are not liable for 100% reclaim on their federal tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e45082ebd31646e9466456f04258ad79", "text": "\"Please declare everything you earn in India as well as the total amount of assets (it's called FBAR). The penalties for not declaring is jail time no matter how small the amount (and lots of ordinary people every 2-3 years are regularly sent to jail for not declaring such income). It's taken very seriously by the IRS - and any Indian bank who has an office in the US or does business here, can be asked by IRS to provide any bank account details for you. You will get deductions for taxes already paid to a foreign country due to double taxation, so there won't be any additional taxes because income taxes in US are on par or even lower than that in India. Using tricks (like transferring ownership to your brother) may not be worth it. Note: you pay taxes only when you realize gains anyway - both in India or here, so why do you want to take such hassles. If you transfer to your brother, it will be taxed only until you hold them. Make sure you have exact dates of gains between the date you came to US and the date you \"\"gifted\"\" to your brother. As long as you clearly document that the stocks transferred to your brother was a gift and you have no more claims on them, it should be ok, but best to consult a CPA in the US. If you have claims on them, example agreement that you will repurchase them, then you will still continue to pay taxes. If you sell your real estate investments in India, you have to pay tax on the gains in the US (and you need proof of the original buying cost and your sale). If you have paid taxes on the real estate gains in India, then you can get deduction due to double tax avoidance treaty. No issues in bringing over the capital from India to US.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec3d14f8d9e15d3aab6f98d3a9cf46fd", "text": "If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "160b53ca12571e13b7d782139902689c", "text": "Assuming you are looking at moving your earnings when your tax status in India was NRI; then there are no taxes to be paid when you transfer the money back to India. You can move the funds back to India over a period of 7 years from the day you land.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b6283d1a0db1485ca2d42467220e43e", "text": "Prachi - While most non-resident aliens are not allowed to claim the standard deduction here are some exceptions: IRS Law under Article 21: ARTICLE 21 Payments Received by Students and Apprentices This falls under the U.S.A.-India Tax Treaty. Sources: I hope this helps. So, yes, I do believe you would be able to claim the standard deduction, although it's always good to check with a tax adviser.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f73167c4ae92bc96c2e6c11bcc3033b9", "text": "\"My employer decided to pay my salary in India after I submit a form W-8BEN. This means that the wages / salary is deemed accrued for work from India. Hence your employer need not withhold and pay taxes on this wage in US. Is this payment taxable in the States since I am staying outside of States? Should I declare this income to IRS in case if I go back to the States later this year? No tax is due as the work is done outside on US. If you go back this would be similar to as you had gone first. Depending on your \"\"tax residency status\"\" you would have to declare all assets. If my US employer wires my US salary to my NRE account is that taxable in India? This is still taxable in India. It is advised that you have the funds transferred into a regular savings account. Please note you have to pay taxes in advance as per prescribed due dates in Sept, Dec, March. how does the Indian tax man identify if it is a taxable income and not just the regular remittance. This question is off topic here. Whether income taxes finds out about this is irrelevant. By law one is required to pay taxes on income earned in India.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa74f9772e688a7311fdd7a91a3b9504", "text": "Are there any IRS regulations I should be aware of when sending money to India? None. As long as you are following the standard banking channels. You are also declaring all the accounts held outside US in your tax returns. FBAR. Is it legal to do so? Yes it is legal. do I have to declare how much I am investing and pay extra taxes? As part of FBAR. Income earned [including interest, capital gains, etc] needs to be paid in India [there are some exemptions for example interest on NRE accounts] as well as in the US [relief can be claimed under DTAA Indian version here and US here]. So if you already have paid taxes on salary and say transfer USD 10K to India; there is no tax on this 10K. If this 10K generates an income of say 2K; this 2K is taxable as per normal classification and rules.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4ef5c4ed24545adb39d5f91f19212f2", "text": "If you want to prove the actual tax liability you have in the US - you have to file a tax return. If the Romanian government believes you that the withholding is your actual tax - fine, but that would be a lie. Withholding is not a tax. The American payers must withhold from foreigners enough to have transferred more than the actual tax the foreigners would have paid. The standard withholding is 30%, but the actual tax on dividends varies. In case the tax treaty limits the tax on dividends - the withholding is usually up to the maximum of the tax allowed by the treaty. But allowed doesn't mean that would be the actual tax. In many cases it is not. So if you want to claim the US tax paid as a credit towards your Romanian tax - you'll need to file a tax return in the US, calculate the actual tax liability and that would be the amount of credit you can claim. The difference between that amount and the amount withheld by the payer will be refunded to you by the IRS. You don't have to file a US tax return, that is true. But the withholding is not the tax, the actual tax liability may have been less, and the Romanian tax authority may deny your credit, in whole or in part, based on the fact that you haven't filed a US tax return and as such have no proof of your actual tax paid. You had some experience with the UK tax treaty, and you think all the treaties are the same. That may be a reasonable line of thought, but it is incorrect. Treaties are not the same. More importantly, even if the treaty is the same - the tax law is not. While in the UK the tax on dividends may be flat and from the first pound - in the US it is neither flat nor from the first dollar. Thus, while in the UK you may have been used to paying tax at source and that's it - in the US it doesn't work that way at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c409a1afbc53fbc1ed1a0b689ab8c03a", "text": "Assuming you are Resident Indian. As per Indian Income Tax As per section 208 every person whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000, shall pay his tax in advance in the form of “advance tax”. Thus, any taxpayer whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000 has to pay his tax in advance by the due dates prescribed in this regard. However, as per section 207, a resident senior citizen (i.e., an individual of the age of 60 years or above) not having any income from business or profession is not liable to pay advance tax. In other words, if a person satisfies the following conditions, he will not be liable to pay advance tax: Hence only self assessment tax need to be paid without any interest. Refer the full guideline on Income tax website", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3952f02414674a677415876312af53fe", "text": "First, yes, your LLC has to file annual taxes to the US government. All US companies do, regardless of where their owners live. Second, you will also probably be liable to personally file a return in the US and unless the US has a tax treaty with India (which I don't believe it does) you may end up paying taxes on your same income to both countries. Finally, opening a US bank account as a foreign citizen can be very tricky. You need to talk to a US accountant who is familiar with Indian & US laws.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d83c65d4b2dae41745cf02c84f812e34", "text": "There are numerous approaches to lose a ton of weight quick. Be that as it may, the majority of them will make you eager and unsatisfied. In the event that you don't have press determination, at that point appetite will make you abandon these arrangements rapidly. To weight loss, every one of your dinners ought to incorporate a protein source, a fat source and low-carbon vegetables. High protein diets can likewise decrease over the top musings about nourishment by 60%, diminish crave for late-night nibbling considerably.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f2444b60eee4d9ca30dc8ff936605690	My bank refused to do a charge back	[ { "docid": "ecce220fa16d9537994bc292b4454923", "text": "Call Comcast during a non-peak time (first thing in the morning?), wait on hold, and politely explain what happened and request a $50 credit. Also politely request that your premium support request be handled for free given how much hassle you've had getting disconnected. They'll be able to tell your premium request was never answered because there are no notes on your support tickets. Calling them is much easier than any of your other options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0088551e56693f9713c06610f68b44f1", "text": "You can't make your bank do a charge back. This function is to assist with straight up fraud, not a customer service mistake. (Think spoofed or stolen card or if a vendor intentionally acted fraudulently.) While you may believe what they did is fraud, your bank will require that you provide the vendor with the opportunity to rectify the situation themselves. Trying to call back and giving up after a long hold time won't meet their standards. If banks started letting anyone unhappy with a vendor start doing charge backs, they would be doing nothing else all day. The issues you're describing has not reached the threshold for the bank to authorize a charge back. Comcast has local and regional offices, and you could go in person to speak with someone. Maybe there isn't one near you. There are non-peak hours which wait times will be less. You'll just have to grin and bear it if you truly want the money back. Then, take your business elsewhere and post bad reviews online. Always keep in mind that when you eventually speak with someone, they will not be the person that messed up, and you should be overly nice and polite to them. I promise it will yield far better results than being surly and demanding. Another way to get Comcast's attention would be to file a complaint with the BBB. It might take longer, but I've had this work with big companies, usually with good results. Again, be nice to whomever contacts you. In reference to your recent duplicate question: Mastercard won't be able to help at all. They play no part in the transaction at all.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "95498a9e747aacfe7b9e6063e70c2d35", "text": "This could be a case of the new chip card technology and dealing with slow reimbursement turnaround time. I recently visited a restaurant who was not using the chip technology, and it refused my card after several attempts. I found out from my bank it was because the restaurant was not set up for chip and I had not eaten there before....I know at the other end it takes far longer for the funds to get to the merchant; banks don't want to part with other people's money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "229dcdc4c02910101ea85c81c214c263", "text": "\"The statement is (in laymans terms - if not in real terms) correct. Most credit cards (I know this to be true for VISA and Mastercard) have dispute processes and will do a chargeback on the merchant - ie take the money back from the supplier in cases where you don't receive the goods or other fraud - Particularly if they can't produce a signature and (for transactions which are not face-to-face) a tracking number. Your exact rights will vary by bank, but mostly they need to follow the guidelines set by the Credit Card company - and you do need to be a bit careful - if you received goods which were fake or a dispute arises you may be up for shipping the goods back to the merchant - and you have a limited - but reasonable time - in which to make the dispute. (The statement \"\"the money is the banks\"\" is not technically true, there is no money involved until you pay it, only credit [ they are very different, but almost no-one knows that, I communicated with a Minister of Finance on the topic], but this is quite technical and as a layman not something you need to worry about here)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d5b2fbe25a7e017d381403558ff5054", "text": "\"If it makes you feel any better, I now bank with a credit union. These WF assholes called me one day to tell me that someone had tried to withdraw $500 from my account and that I needed to sign up for a more secure account, of course with a $16 monthly charge. So I did what anybody would do... went to the bank and ask questions right? After I got there and mention the problem they told me that nothing was wrong with my account, that no transactions were attempted and even if they did attempt them and were canceled they would still show up but they didn't. Few minutes later I got another call from that guy and he was telling me that the problem was taken care of and that I didn't need to go to the bank. After that I was just suspicious. Basically what it came down to was that somebody was trying to set me up for accounts that I didn't ask for just so he can get promoted at my expense. They gave me a opportunity to report him but I didn't because I knew him personally, he was one of my \"\"friends\"\" and at the time he had two kids. I didn't want him to lose his job. I told him that what he did was completely fucked up and that you don't do that to people outside of WF. That same day I withdrew all my money. I still remember cutting the conversation short after WF tried to convince me all kinds of ways not to do that. I been with a Credit Union about 3 years now and so far so good.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba3c9cb6dd079f231e920dedb1ecd6f6", "text": "\"Can I force companies to accept a SEPA bank account? Are there any European regulations I can slap on their faces? I am not sure if you can force. Any change in regulations to this effect much come from the Company law Board [or equivalent in each countries.] Right now as much as I understand this is more voluntary for the companies to adopt it and the rationale is its easier for companies and hence beneficial. SEPA Direct Debit is more recent. The key aspect in this is \"\"Mandate Management\"\". Before SEPA every country had slightly different norms. Some were fundamentally different, for example in Belgium Mandate was to be captured and stored by your Bank [payee Bank/Debtor Bank]. In SEPA it is the responsibility of T-Mobile [Creditor]. Although SEPA has guidelines, they are more elementary. For example \"\"Mandate Signature\"\" needs to be on paper. Can an electronic copy be created? Belgium has some guidelines. Other countries have different. This falls in preview of each country defining what a \"\"Signature\"\" is, what is valid electronic signature etc. Further SEPA DD rules allow you to reverse a debit with 8 weeks [you can inform your Bank in Netherlands]. There is also a period of 13 months where you can say this debit was unauthorized. Now this is where is risk comes in as it is borne by the Creditor [T-Mobile]. Depending on convoluted rules in different countries, you may easily prove you didn't sign the mandate because as per Netherlands law, Signature / authorization means xyz. This is more likely the reason the Service providers are not willing to accept account in other Euro Zone.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccc83c20986bc4ce66ffc6f1c1bd529f", "text": "Most merchants (also in Europe) are reasonable, and typically are willing to work with you. credit card companies ask if you tried to work with the merchant first, so although they do not enforce it, it should be the first try. I recommend to give it a try and contact them first. If it doesn't work, you can always go to the credit card company and have the charge reversed. None of this has any effect on your credit score (except if you do nothing and then don't pay your credit card bill). For the future: when a transaction supposedly 'doesn't go through', have them write this on the receipt and give it to you. Only then pay cash. I am travelling 100+ days a year in Europe, using my US credit cards all the time, and there were never any issues - this is not a common problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b1776b58d3761de3875f4ac67e01798", "text": "I don't think there's anything to worry about. TFS doesn't really care who's paying, as long as the loan is being paid as agreed. Of course you're helping your dad's credit history and not your own, but I doubt TFS would give back money just because it came from your bank account. A business may claim a payment wasn't made against the loan, but you'd have the records that you did in fact pay (keep those bank statements). In theory they could sue you, in practice you'd send them the proof and they'd investigate and find the misplaced money. THAT does happen sometimes; the wrong account is credited. If it did end up in court, again you'd win because you have proof you sent payments. Even if you put the wrong loan account number to pay to, you'd have proof you in fact sent the money. If you're talking about something like a loan shark... they can do whatever they like. They won't sue you though, because again you'd have proof. That's why they'd use violence. But probably a loan shark wouldn't falsely claim you didn't pay if you did, as word would get out and the loan shark would lose business. And again, as long as they get what's agreed to, they don't care how they get it or who they get it from.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a2ee7245fe5856128d2dcd81bec498e", "text": "Is there a point after which they legally unable to charge me? No. If you gave a check, then the bank may bounce it as stale after 6 months, but doesn't have to. With debit/credit transactions, they post as they're processed, and some merchants may not sync their terminals or deposit their manual slips often. As the world becomes more and more connected this becomes extremely rare, but still happens. Technically your promise to pay is a contract which never expires, and they can come after you years later to collect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffd1a93e5ba8df50304b578f7aee6402", "text": "As far as I can see, this is an issue of the bank's policy rather than some legal regulation. That means that you'll need to work it out with the bank. To give you a couple of ideas to work with when you talk with them, maybe something from this list will work: Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52b93ea21402f1d2f3d73a6d680c120c", "text": "I have already talked to them over the phone and they insist they haven't charged me yet, and I will not be charged. When I informed them I had in fact been charged they agreed it would be reversed. So I have tried to resolve the issue and I don't have any confidence they will reverse the charge as it has not been done yet. They are difficult to communicate which makes the whole process more difficult. Your best next step is to call the credit card company and share this story. I believe the likely result is that the credit card company will initiate a charge back. My question is, is this a valid reason to file a chargeback on my credit card? Yes. If you attempted to work it out with the vendor and it is not working out, this is an appropriate time to initiate a charge back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7be1da953541e9ce40e4598da9a824e4", "text": "\"Debit Cards have a certain processing delay, \"\"lag time\"\", before the transaction from the vendor completes with your bank. In the US it's typically 3 business days but I have seen even a 15 day lag from Panera Bread. I guess in the UK, payment processors have similar processing delays. A business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime, as that's very expensive. Whatever be the lag time, your bank is supposed to cover the payment you promised through your card. Now if you don't have agreements in place (for example, overdraft) with your bank, they will likely have to turn down payments that exceed your available balance. Here is the raw deal: In the end, the responsibility to ensure that your available balance is enough is upon you (and whether you have agreements in place to handle such situations) So what happened is very much legal, a business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime and no ethics are at stake. To ensure such things do not happen to me, I used to use a sub-account from which my debit card used to get paid. I have since moved to credit cards as the hassle of not overdrawing was too much (and overdraft fees from banks in the US are disastrous, especially for people who actually need such a facility)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3b002ea82cb6beda3efb0966543bceb", "text": "Maybe there's more to this story, because as written, your sister seems, well, a little irrational. Is it possible that the bank will try to cheat you and demand that you pay a loan again that you've already paid off? Or maybe not deliberately cheat you, but make a mistake and lose track of the fact that you paid? Sure, it's POSSIBLE. But if you're going to agonize about that, what about all the other possible ways that someone could cheat you? What if you go to a store, hand over your cash for the purchase, and then the clerk insists that you never gave him any cash? What if you buy a car and it turns out to be stolen? What if you buy insurance and when you have a claim the insurance company refuses to pay? What if someone you've never met or even heard of before suddenly claims that you are the father of her baby and demands child support? Etc etc. Realistically, banks are fanatical about record-keeping. Their business is pretty much all about record-keeping. Mistakes like this are very rare. And a big business like a bank is unlikely to blatantly cheat you. They can and do make millions of dollars legally. Why should they break the law and risk paying huge fines and going to prison for a few hundred dollars? They may give you a lousy deal, like charge you outrageous overdraft fees and pay piddling interest on your deposit, but they're not going to lie about how much you owe. They just don't. I suggest that you not live your life in fear of all the might-be's. Take reasonable steps to protect yourself and get on with it. Read contracts before you sign, even if the other person gets impatient while you sit there reading. ESPECIALLY if the other person insists that you sign without reading. When you pay off a loan, you should get a piece of paper from the bank saying the loan has been paid. Stuff this piece of paper in a filing cabinet and keep it for years and years. Get a copy of your credit report periodically and make sure that there are no errors on it, like incorrect loan balances. I check mine once every year or two. Some people advise checking it every couple of months. It all depends how nervous you are and how much time you want to spend on it. Then get on with your life. Has your sister had some bad experience with loans in the past? Or has she never borrowed money and she's just confused about how it works? That's why I wonder if there's more to the story, if there's some basis for her fears.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92a7154681dbe43fcf31af20a30e0bac", "text": "I just had this happen to me with Chase and speaking with my executive support contact, they will not return the funds unless you request them back. Which I find appalling and just one more reason that I don't like working with Chase!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e24b171d757ef9cc138878484923fbde", "text": "\"You promised to pay the loan if he didn't. That was a commitment, and I recommend \"\"owning\"\" your choice and following it through to its conclusion, even if you never do that again. TLDR: You made a mistake: own it, keep your word, and embrace the lesson. Why? Because you keep your promises. (Nevermind that this is a rare time where your answer will be directly recorded, in your credit report.) This isn't moralism. I see this as a \"\"defining moment\"\" in a long game: 10 years down the road I'd like you to be wise, confident and unafraid in financial matters, with a healthy (if distant) relationship with our somewhat corrupt financial system. I know austerity stinks, but having a strong financial life will bring you a lot more money in the long run. Many are leaping to the conclusions that this is an \"\"EX-friend\"\" who did this deliberately. Don't assume this. For instance, it's quite possible your friend sold the (car?) at a dealer, who failed to pay off this note, or did and the lender botched the paperwork. And when the collector called, he told them that, thinking the collector would fix it, which they don't do. The point is, you don't know: your friend may be an innocent party here. Creditors generally don't report late payments to the credit bureaus until they're 30 days late. But as a co-signer, you're in a bad spot: you're liable for the payments, but they don't send you a bill. So when you hear about it, it's already nearly 30 days late. You don't get any extra grace period as a co-signer. So you need to make a payment right away to keep that from going 30 late, or if it's already 30 late, to keep it from going any later. If it is later determined that it was not necessary for you to make those payments, the lender should give them back to you. A less reputable lender may resist, and you may have to threaten small claims court, which is a great expense to them. Cheaper to pay you. They say France is the nation of love. They say America is the nation of commerce. So it's not surprising that here, people are quick to burn a lasting friendship over a temporary financial issue. Just saying, that isn't necessarily the right answer. I don't know about you, but my friends all have warts. Nobody's perfect. Financial issues are just another kind of wart. And financial life in America is hard, because we let commerce run amok. And because our obsession with it makes it a \"\"loaded\"\" issue and thus hard to talk about. Perhaps your friend is in trouble but the actual villain is a predatory lender. Point is, the friendship may be more important than this temporary adversity. The right answer may be to come together and figure out how to make it work. Yes, it's also possible he's a human leech who hops from person to person, charming them into cosigning for him. But to assume that right out of the gate is a bit silly. The first question I'd ask is \"\"where's the car?\"\" (If it's a car). Many lenders, especially those who loan to poor credit risks, put trackers in the car. They can tell you where it is, or at least, where it was last seen when the tracker stopped working. If that is a car dealer's lot, for instance, that would be very informative. Simply reaching out to the lender may get things moving, if there's just a paperwork issue behind this. Many people deal with life troubles by fleeing: they dread picking up the phone, they fearfully throw summons in the trash. This is a terrifying and miserable way to deal with such a situation. They learn nothing, and it's pure suffering. I prefer and recommend the opposite: turn into it, deal with it head-on, get ahead of it. Ask questions, google things, read, become an expert on the thing. Be the one calling the lender, not the other way round. This way it becomes a technical learning experience that's interesting and fun for you, and the lender is dreading your calls instead of the other way 'round. I've been sued. It sucked. But I took it on boldly, and and actually led the fight and strategy (albeit with counsel). And turned it around so he wound up paying my legal bills. HA! With that precious experience, I know exactly what to do... I don't fear being sued, or if absolutely necessary, suing. You might as well get the best financial education. You're paying the tuition!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08714b4e965257c6b6b9472a64777a3e", "text": "From my experience using PayPal for selling products on eBay (and for the last two, experiences of a friend)... Can paypal get money from my Bank Account without my authorization. This is assuming they have transferred the funds to me. They can't pull money from your bank account without your authorization. They will, however, take the money from your PayPal account if it's still there, or leave you with a negative balance if you've already withdrawn. They will do this as soon as there is a claim against you and will only release the funds if the investigation ends in your favor. Any money received would first be used to satisfy the negative balance. What actions can paypal takes against me if charge back amount is very high and I don't agree / pay them. They will send it to a collections agency. Is there any case it is going to effect my bank account, i.e. is there any chance paypal can block my bank account in India. They will block you from using PayPal. If you try to sign up again with a different bank account or credit card and they recognize you as the account holder, they will block that account as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9190beab9ebe5a6f2c8fb4667cf8972", "text": "For me, it is mostly for the fraud protection. If I have a debit card and someone makes a fraudulent charge the money is removed from my bank account. From my understanding, I can then file a fraud complaint with the bank to recover my money. However, for some period of time, the money is missing from my bank account. I've heard conflicting stories of money being returned quickly while the complaint is undergoing investigation as well as money being tied up for several days/weeks. It may depend on the bank. With a credit card, it is the banks money that is tied up.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a232910edb2326447cd8ee8f6d90bceb	Should I cancel an existing credit card so I can open another that has rewards?	[ { "docid": "765030ab89ad614b11797593a102d108", "text": "Cancelled cards don't fall off the system for a long time, up to ten years. Card terms change, with notice of course, but it can happen at any time. I had a card with a crazy perk, 5% back in Apple Gift cards. This was pre-iPod days, but it was great to get a new computer every two years for free. But it was short lived. Three years into it, the cards were changed, a no-perk card from the bank. That is now my oldest account, and it goes unused. Instead of holding cards like this, I wish I had flipped it to a different card years ago. Ideally, your mix of cards should provide value to you, and if they all do, then when one perk goes away, it's time to refresh that card. This is a snapshot from my report at CreditKarma. (Disclosure, I like these guys, I've met their PR folk. I have no business relationship with them) Elsewhere on the page it's noted that average card age is a 'medium impact' item. I am 50, but I use the strategy above to keep the cards working for me. My current score is 784, so this B on the report isn't hurting too much. The tens of thousands I've saved in mortgage interest by being a serial refinancer was worth the hit on account age, as was the credit card with a 10% rebate for 90 days, the 'newest account' you see in the snapshot. In the end, the score manipulation is a bit of a game. And some of it is counter-intuitive. Your score can take a minor hit for actions that would seem responsible, but your goal should be to have the right mix of cards, and the lowest interest (long term) loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76fe6db5439db6d14ae920967b308364", "text": "You're right to keep the oldest one. That's an asset to your credit rating. Since you're already responsible with your credit, a dip in your credit rating doesn't really matter unless you're looking for another loan, like a mortgage. I personally like the cash-back rewards because they're the most flexible, so you have a good thing going with that card. Do those reward cards give you perks on all of your purchases? If they do, then look carefully to see if you can do noticeably better with another card. If not, it may not really be worth it. Regarding cancelling one of the cards, I wouldn't, and here's why. Your cards can get compromised, and sometimes more than one gets compromised at the same time. I was glad that I had three cards, because two of them got hit the same day. Hence, having three cards hit on the same day is possible, and you'll be glad that you have the fourth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bfa0d3c95302ce39cc3ed6fcf02b429", "text": "Hits to your credit rating for canceling one of the newer cards will be a small hit for a few months. You do have some options. I also believe that a person with good credit should have multiple cards: I like having a cash back card for the majority of our transactions. Unfortunately that card isn't accepted everywhere, so I have two other cards with broad market coverage to make sure we always have an option if the vendor doesn't take the main card. Also having multiple cards makes sure that if there is an issue with one card you are never caught without a card. One time the main card was rejected by a gas station because my wife just used the same account to buy gas across town. When we got home their was a fraud alert message on our phone.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5aff8bc52a262444e0751a878dacafe6", "text": "Even if you can pull this off (I think it is possible with creativity) it is likely not worth it. The number of ways this can come crashing down is high and the benefits are marginal at best. The opportunity cost of carrying this out is likely higher than the saved interest from just carrying the $500 balance. Do this with too much money and you can find yourself in real trouble if one card gets cancelled (late fees, penalties, and no way to make repayment). Basically this is theoretically possible but not worth it. Just work an extra hour each month and pay the interest. Or, if you don't have a job, just pay the interest and spend the time you save to look for a job.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d47872c305ac82a7baf1b8d3fd8b0b2", "text": "The difference in interest is not a huge factor in your decision. It's about $2 per month. Personally I would go ahead and knock one out since it's one less to worry about. Then I would cancel the account and cut that card up so you are not tempted to use it again. To address the comments... Cutting up the card is NOT the ultimate solution. The solution is to stop borrowing money... Get on a strict budget, live on less than what you bring home, and throw everything you can at this high-interest debt. The destroying of the card is partly symbolic - it's a gesture to indicate that you're not going to use credit cards at all, or at least until they can be used responsibly, not paying a DIME of interest. It's analogous to a recovering alcoholic pouring out bottles of booze. Sure you can easily get more, but it's a commitment to changing your attitude and behavior. Yes leaving the card open will reduce utilization and improve (or not hurt) credit score - but if the goal is to stop borrowing money and pay off the other card, then once that is achieved, your credit score will be significantly improved, and the cancelling of the first card will not matter. The card (really both cards) should never, ever be used again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11d6e3b365124d47cdc7ff9ed0d3a2d5", "text": "Generally speaking, you don't get the sign-up bonus when you product change to another card. The right thing to do in your case is:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "720826f9bcda8f43ce64a55e6a773523", "text": "I plan to stay debt free, but I appreciate the non-debt-related advantages of having a good credit score. If you plan to stay debt-free, then opening up more cards will not significantly change your credit score. You seem to want to be going from a good score to a great score, which adding cards alone will not do. Also, I highly doubt it will significantly affect any of the five things you mention. If you had a bad credit score, then I could see some effect on renting an apartment, getting a job (where trust with money is a component of the job), etc., but don't try to game the system for some number. You won't magically get cheaper cell phone rates, lower insurance premiums, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9b63ee6b91966273d3a16a44f838842", "text": "Another good reason: if you have to replace a card due to damage, loss, or identity theft it's nice to have a backup you can use until the new card for your primary account arrives. I know folks who use a secondary card for online purchases specifically so they can kill it if necessary without impacting their other uses, online arguably being at more risk. If there's no yearly fee, and if you're already paying the bill in full every month, a second card/account is mostly harmless. If you have trouble restraining yourself with one card, a second could be dangerous.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87f7466bc890563ee9345c8834bfb181", "text": "Also, unless I missed it and someone already mentioned it, do keep in mind the impact of these credit cards balances on your credit score. Over roughly 75% usage on a given credit account reflects badly on your score and has a pretty large impact on how your worthiness is calculated. It gives the impression that you are a person that lives month to month on cards, etc. If you could get both cards down to reasonable balances to where you could begin paying on them regularly and work them down over time, that will not only look incredible for your credit report but also immediately begin making your credit worthiness begin to raise due to the fact that you will not have accounts that (I'm assuming here) are at very high usage (over 75% of your total limit.) If you have to get one card knocked out just to get breathing room, and you're boxed in here -- or honestly even if the mental stress is causing you incredible hardship day to day, then I suppose blow one card out of the water, reassess and start getting to work on that second card. I hope this helped, I'm no expert, but I have had every kind of luck with credit cards and accounts you could think of, so I can only give my experience from the rubber-meets-the-road perspective. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d14711729b97add28c20e2e8b1141186", "text": "\"I'm the contrarian on this forum. Since you asked a \"\"should I ...\"\" question, I'm free to answer \"\"No, you shouldn't increase your limit. Instead, you should close it out\"\". A credit card is a money pump - it pumps money from your account to the bank's profit margins. When I look at my furniture and the bank's furniture, I know exactly who needs my money more (hint: it's not the bank). Credit cards change people's spending patterns. In my first day of training as a Sears salesman, the use of the card was drummed into our heads. People purchase on average 25% more when they use a card than when they pay cash. That's good if you're a retailer or the lender (at that time Sears was both), but no good if you're a consumer. Build up a $1,000 emergency fund (for emergencies only, not \"\"I need a quick latte because I stayed up too late last night\"\"), then savings for 6 to 12 months living expenses. Close and cut up the credit card. Save up and pay cash for everything except possibly your house mortgage. If you have that much cash in the bank, the bankers will be as willing to talk to you as if you had an 800+ score. I have lived both with and without debt. Life without debt is well worth the short term sacrifice early on.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63d342f0ad89564e38df7ece1bc661f8", "text": "First off, congratulations on taking care of your finances and paying off your cards! Takes a lot of discipline. If your next oldest card is just a year apart, you can safely close this card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0e1fbb838e5de08120f729b470cc3ed", "text": "PenFed Platinum Cashback Rewards Visa Card is another good choice. Pros: Cons:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3fce490685e386e16b16c2e938b82cf", "text": "Great question. First, my recommendation would be for you to get a card that does not have a yearly fee. There are many credit cards out there that provide cash back on your purchases or points to redeem for gift cards or other items. Be sure to cancel the credit card that you have now so you don't forget about that yearly fee. Canceling will have a temporary impact on your credit score if the credit card is your longest held line of credit. Second, it is recommended not to use more than 20% of all the available credit, staying above that line can affect your credit score. I think that is what you are hearing about running up large balances on your credit card. If you are worried about staying below the 20% line, you can always request a larger line of credit. Just keep paying it off each month though and you will be fine. You already have a history of credit if you have begun paying off your student loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e39f2aa66c02a22a9eb53c52ff636bd", "text": "A credit balance can happen any time you have a store return, but paid the bill in full. It's no big deal. Why not just charge the next gas purchase or small grocery store purchase, to cycle it through? Yes - unused cards can get canceled by the bank, and that can hurt your credit score. In the US anyway. I'm guessing it's the same system or similar in Canada.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70be767cf8054746efe00c029e2349f2", "text": "\"The bottom line is that you are kind of a terrible customer for them. Granted you are far better than one that does not pay his bills, but you are (probably) in the tier right above that. Rewards cards are used to lure the unorganized into out of control interest rates and late payments. These people are Capital One's, and others, best customers. They have traded hundreds of dollars in interest payments for a couple of dollars in rewards. The CC company says: \"\"YUMMY\"\"! You, on the other hand, cut into their \"\"meager\"\" profits from fees collected from your transactions. Why should they help you make more money? Why should they further cut into your profits? Response to comment: Given your comment I think the bottom line is a matter of perspective. You seem like a logical, altruistic type person who probably seeks a win-win situation in business dealings. This differs from CC companies they operate to seek one thing: enslavement. BTW the \"\"terrible customer\"\" remark should be taken as a compliment. After you get past the marketing lies you begin to see what reward programs and zero percent financing is all about. How do most people end up with 21%+ interest rates? They started with a zero percent balance loan, and was late for a payment. Reward cards work a bit differently. Studies show that people tend to spend about 17% more when they use a reward card. I've caught myself ordering an extra appetizer or beer and have subsequently stopped using a reward card for things I can make a decision at the time of purchase. For people with tight budgets this leads to debt. My \"\"meager\"\" profits paragraph makes sense when you understand the onerous nature of CC companies. They are not interested in earning 2% on purchases (charge 3% and give back 1%) for basically free money. You rightly see this as what should be a win-win for all parties involved. Thus the meager in quotation marks. CC companies are willing to give back 1% and charge 3% if you then pay 15% or more on your balance. Some may disagree with me on the extracting nature of CC companies, but they are wrong. I like him as an actor, but I don't believe Samuel Jackson's lines.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93926a91c4712436415f97d3fbb92af1", "text": "Start with the cards you already have. If you don't have enough room on the best card, then ask for a credit increase. You have to keep in mind that some of the programs have a maximum amount you can charge to get the bonus cash back amount. Others have a graduated plan where the first few thousand dollars are at a lower cash back rate. If you do decide to get a new card, make sure you get a large enough credit limit or the work to get a new card was for naught. I would start with bankrate.com to research cards.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69972764b24f7e26ef9ebfed92a062e7", "text": "You want to have 2-4 credit cards, with a credit utilization ratio below 30%. If you only have 2 cards, closing 1 would reduce your credit diversity and thus lower your credit score. You also want at least 2 years credit history, so closing an older credit card may shorten your credit history, again lowering your credit score. You want to keep around at least 1-2 older cards, even if they are not the best. You have 4 cards: But having 2-4 cards (you have 4) means you can add a 5th, and then cancel one down to 4, or cancel one down to 3 and then add a 4th, for little net effect. Still, there will be effect, as you have decreased the age of your credit, and you have opened new credit (always a ding to your score). Do you have installment loans (cars), you mention a new mortgage, so you need to wait about 3 months after the most recent credit activity to let the effects of that change settle. You want both spouses to have separate credit cards, and that will increase the total available to 4-8. That would allow you to increase the number of benefits available.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "104ae8a9ec8b6b78961094e0cd95e102", "text": "If you had a CC issuer that allowed you to do bill-pay this way, I suspect the payment would be considered a cash advance that will trigger a fee and a pretty egregious cash advance specific interest rate. It's not normal for a credit payment portal to accept a credit card as payment. If you were able to do this as a balance transfer, again there would be fees to transfer the balance and you would not earn any rewards from the transferred balance. I think it's important to note that cash back benefits are effectively paid by merchant fees. You make a $100 charge, the merchant pays about $2.50 in transaction fee, you're credited with about $1 of cash back (or points or whatever). Absent a merchant transaction and the associated fee there's no pot of money from which to apply cash back rewards.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
6464e4b23eff3abca47946f31101e6b4	How to rebalance a portfolio without moving money into losing investments	[ { "docid": "dbd9c00442847632ae387f2b69c7b500", "text": "You are very correct, rebalancing is basically selling off winners to buy losers. Of course the thinking is that selling a winner that has already increased 100% on the basis that it has doubled so it is likely to go down in the near future. However, just look at Apple as an example, if you bought Apple in June 2009 for $20 (adjusted price) and sold it as part of rebalancing when it rose to $40 (adjusted price) in September 2010, you would have missed out on it reaching over $95 2 years later. Similarly you look to rebalance by buying assets which have been battered (say dropped by 50%) on the basis that it has dropped so much that it should start increasing in the near future. But many times the price can fall even further. A better method would be to sell your winners when they stop being winners (i.e. their uptrend ends) and replace them with assets that are just starting their winning ways (i.e. their downtrend has ended and are now starting to Uptrend). This can be achieved by looking at price action and referring to the definitions of an uptrend and a downtrend. Definition of an uptrend - higher highs and higher lows. Definition of a downtrend - lower lows and lower highs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45856bc2be034a008457fdc32d73a8dc", "text": "A strategy of rebalancing assumes that the business cycle will continue, that all bull and bear markets end eventually. Imagine that you maintained a 50% split between a US Treasury bond mutual fund (VUSTX) and an S&P 500 stock mutual fund (VFINX) beginning with a $10,000 investment in each on January 1, 2008, then on the first of each year you rebalanced your portfolio on the first of January (we can pretend the markets are open that day). The following table illustrates the values in each of those funds with the rebalancing transactions: This second table shows what that same money would look like without any rebalancing over those years: Obviously this is cherry-picking for the biggest drop we've recently experienced, but even if you skipped 2008 and 2009, the increase for a rebalanced portfolio from 2010-2017 is 85% verses 54% for the portfolio that is not being rebalanced in the same period. This is also a plenty conservative portfolio. You can see that a 100% stock portfolio dropped 40% in 2008, but the combined portfolio only dropped 18%. A 100% stock portfolio has gained 175% since 2009, compared to 105% for the balanced portfolio, but it's common to trade gains for safety as you get closer to retirement. You didn't ask about a 100% stock portfolio in your initial question. These results would be repeated in many other portfolio allocations because some asset classes outperform others one year, then underperform the next. You sell after the years it outperforms, then you buy after years that it underperforms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef9429865803bf29a1a71258184dcea3", "text": "Also, almost by definition rebalancing involves making more trades than you would have otherwise; wouldn't the additional trading fees you incurred in doing so reduce the benefits of this strategy? You forgot to mention taxes. Rebalancing does or rather can incur costs. One way to minimize the costs is to use the parts of the portfolio that have essentially zero cost of moving. These generally are the funds in your retirement accounts. In the United States they can be in IRAs or 401Ks; they can be regular or Roth. Selling winners withing the structure of the plan doesn't trigger capital gains taxes, and many have funds within them that have zero loads. Another way to reduce trading fees is to only rebalance once a year or once every two years; or by setting a limit on how far out of balance. For example don't rebalance at 61/39 to get back to 60/40 even if it has been two years. Given that the ratio of investments is often rather arbitrary to begin with, how do I know whether I'm selling high and buying low or just obstinately sticking with a losing asset ratio? The ratio used in an example or in an article may be arbitrary, but your desired ratio isn't arbitrary. You selected the ratio of your investments based on several criteria: your age, your time horizon, your goals for the money, how comfortable you are with risk. As these change during your investing career those ratios would also morph. But they aren't arbitrary. These decisions to rebalance are separate from the ones to sell a particular investment. You could sell Computer Company X because of how it is performing, and buy stock in Technology Company Y because you think it has a better chance of growing. That transaction would not be a re-balancing. Selling part of your stock in Domestic Company A to buy stock in international Company B would be part of a re-balancing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eef9aedb0ad4b895b7f771712e625179", "text": "If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f000b3d3ea91278770cbb20cd4af0ced", "text": "What you're describing is called timing the market. That is, if you correctly predict when the market will drop, you can sell before the drop, wait for the drop, then buy after the drop has occurred. Sell high, buy low. The fundamental problem with that, though, is: What ends up happening, on average, is you end up slightly behind. There's quite a lot of literature on this; see Betterment's explanation for example. Forbes (click through ad first) also has a detailed piece on the matter. Now, we're not really talking HFT issues here; and there are some structural things that some argue you can take advantage of (restrictions on some organizational investors, for example, similar to a blackjack dealer who has to hit on 16). However, everyone else knows about these too - so it's hard to gain much of an edge. Plenty of people say they can time the market right, and even yourself perhaps you timed a particular drop accurately. This tends to lead to false confidence though; how many drops that you timed badly do you remember? Ultimately, most investors end up slightly down when they attempt to time the market, because of the transaction costs (if you guess two drops, one 'right' and one 'wrong', and they have exactly opposite gains/losses before commissions, you will lose a bit on each due to commission), and because of the overall upward trend in the market (ie, if you picked at random one month a year to be out of the market, you'd lose around 10% annualized gains from doing that; same applies here). All of that aside, there is one major caveat: risk tolerance. If you are highly risk tolerant, say a 30 year old investing your 401(k), then you should stay in no matter what. If you're not - say you're 58 and retiring in a few years - then knowledge that there's a higher risk time period coming up might suggest moving to a less risky portfolio, even at the known cost of some gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "733bdfd0269c974184d15a1ad82c5f9a", "text": "For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b49aa1173c6209877e4cc7134568228f", "text": "Note that if 1) The stock prices are continuously differentiable (they aren't) 2) You rebalance continuously in the absence of trading fees and taxes then the return fraction (future price / original price) will be the geometric mean of the return fractions for each investment. If you don't rebalance then the return fraction will be the arithmetic mean. But the arithmetic mean is ALWAYS greater than or equal to the geometric mean, so continuous rebalancing in the case of continuously differentiable prices will always hurt you, even abscent trading costs/taxes. Any argument in favor of blind rebalancing which does not somehow fail in the continuously differentiable case is simply wrong. See https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/38536036/to%20karim.pdf -JT", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2df67d91e2c1c9ae4457d083be5beb0c", "text": "I think you're missing Simon Moore's point. His point is that, due to low inflation, the returns on almost all asset classes should be less than they have been historically, so we shouldn't rebalance our portfolio or withdraw from the market and hold cash based on the assumption that stocks (or any other asset) seem to be underperforming relative to historical trends. His last paragraph is written in case someone might misunderstand him, he is not advocating to hold cash, just that investors should not expect as good returns as has happened historically, since those happened in higher inflation environments. To explain: If the inflation rate historically has been 5% and now it's 2%, and the risk-free-market return should be about 2%, then historically the return on a risk-free asset would be 7% (2%+5%), and now it should be expected to be 4% (2%+2%). So, if you have had a portfolio over some time you might be concerned that the rate of return is worsening, but Simon's point is that before you sell off your stocks / switch investment brokers, you should try to figure out if inflation is the cause of the performance loss. On the subject of cash: cash always loses value over time from inflation, since inflation is a measure of the increase in prices over time-- it's a part of the definition of what inflation is. That said, cash holdings lose value more slowly when inflation is lower, so they are relatively less worse than before. The future value of cash doesn't go up in low inflation (you'd need deflation for that), it just decreases at a lower rate, that is, it becomes less expensive to hold- but there still is a price. As an addendum, unless a completely new economic paradigm is adopted by world leaders, we will always see cash holdings decrease in value over time, since modern economics holds that deflation is one of the worst things that can happen to an economy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cedfdaf74a6b62e2c8d8004af049661d", "text": "Determine an investment strategy and that will likely answer this for you. Different people have different approaches and you need to determine for yourself what buy and sell criteria you want to have. Again, depending on the strategy there can be a wide range here as some may trade index funds though this can backfire in some cases. In others, there can be a lot of buy and hold if one finds an index fund to hold forever which depending on the strategy is possible. Returns can vary widely as an index can be everything from buying gold stocks in Russia to investing in short-term Treasuries as there are many different indices as any given market can have an index which could be stocks, bonds, a combination of the two or something else in some cases so please consider asset allocation, types of accounts, risk tolerance and time horizon in making decisions or consider using a financial planner to assist in drawing up a plan with allocations and how frequently you want to rebalance as my suggestion here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "634312a11375ed10181224df31580810", "text": "\"I'm assuming that all the savings are of 'defined contribution' type, and not 'defined benefit' as per marktristan's comment to the original question. Aside from convenience of having all the pension money in one place, which may or may not be something you care about, there may be a benefit associated with being able to rebalance your portfolio when you need do. Say you invest your pension pot in a 60%/40% of equities and bonds respectively. Due higher risk/reward ratio of the equities part, in the long run equities tend to get 'overweight' turning your mix into 70%/30% or even 80%/20%, therefore raising your overall exposure to equities. General practice is to rebalance your portfolio every now and then, in this case, by selling some equities and buying more bonds (\"\"sell high, buy low\"\"). Now if you have few small pockets of pension money, it makes it harder to keep track of the overall asset allocation and actually do the rebalancing as you cannot see and trade everything from one place.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bf25fbe8c8183d101281c3efbe087c4", "text": "You have to understand what risk is and how much risk you want to take on, and weight your portfolio accordingly. I think your 80/20 split based on wrong assumptions is the wrong way to look at it. It sounds like your risk appetite has changed. Risk is deviation from expected, so risk is not bad, and you can have cases where everyone would prefer the riskier asset. If you think the roulette table is too risky, instead of betting $1, stick 50c in your pocket and you changed the payoffs from $2 or 0 to 50c or $1.50 If your risk appetite has changed - change your risk exposure. If not, then all you are saying is I bought the wrong stuff earlier, now I should get out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44eb02cae8302ba335d2032af7a43460", "text": "You can only lose your 7%. The idea that a certain security is more volatile than others in your portfolio does not mean that you can lose more than the value of the investment. The one exception is that a short position has unlimited downside, but i dont think there are any straight short mutual funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "101679bbac4e296e705bad5e77b74459", "text": "I think the advice Bob is being given is good. Bob shouldn't sell his investments just because their price has gone down. Selling cheap is almost never a good idea. In fact, he should do the opposite: When his investments become cheaper, he should buy more of them, or at least hold on to them. Always remember this rule: Buy low, sell high. This might sound illogical at first, why would someone keep an investment that is losing value? Well, the truth is that Bob doesn't lose or gain any money until he sells. If he holds on to his investments, eventually their value will raise again and offset any temporary losses. But if he sells as soon as his investments go down, he makes the temporary losses permanent. If Bob expects his investments to keep going down in the future, naturally he feels tempted to sell them. But a true investor doesn't try to anticipate what the market will do. Trying to anticipate market fluctuations is speculating, not investing. Quoting Benjamin Graham: The most realistic distinction between the investor and the speculator is found in their attitude toward stock-market movements. The speculator's primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting from market fluctuations. The investor's primary interest lies in acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices. Market movements are important to him in a practical sense, because they alternately create low price levels at which he would be wise to buy and high price levels at which he certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell. Assuming that the fund in question is well-managed, I would refrain from selling it until it goes up again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bdccbd5c576bbbfa192d1788df6e45a", "text": "\"If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider \"\"safer investments\"\" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6bf11b0627d73cbea9659cfedae9210", "text": "\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5f8e55a69c763efd9c32592762998ef", "text": "When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bc71668a8b9096a2bcfb406c5bacf23", "text": "In your entire question, the only time you mention that this is an investment inside an IRA is when you say Every quarter, six months, whatever Id have to rebalance my IRA while Vanguard would do this for the fund of funds without me needing to. Within an IRA, there are no tax implications to the rebalancing. But if this investment were not inside an IRA, then the rebalancing done by you will have tax implications. In particular, any gains realized when you sell shares in one fund and buy shares in another fund during the rebalancing process are subject to income tax. Similarly, losses also might be realized (and will affect your taxes). However, if you are invested in a fund of funds, there are no capital gains (or capital losses) when re-balancing is done; you have gains or losses only when you sell shares of the fund of funds for a price different than the price you paid for them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f6dbee2a64e74d7236cc6693d80ca1c", "text": "I do this very thing, but with asset allocation and risk parity in mind. I disagree with the cash or bust answers above, but many of the aforementioned facts are valuable and I don't mean to undermine them in anyway. That said, let's look at two examples: Option 1: All-in For the sake of argument let's say you had $100k invested in the SPY (S&P 500 ETF) in early 2007, and you kept it there until today. Your lowest balance would have been about $51k, and at this point the possibility of you losing your job was probably at a peak. Today you would be left with $170k assuming no withdrawal. Option 2: Risk Parity BUT if you balanced your investments with a risk parity approach, using negatively correlated asset classes you avoid this dilemma. If you had invested 50% in XLP (Consumer Staples Sector ETF) and 50% in TLT ( Long Term Treasury ETF) your investments low point would have been $88k, and your lowest annual return would be +0.69%. Today you would be left with $214k assuming no withdrawals. I chose option #2 and it hasn't failed me yet, even in 2016 so far the results are steady and reliably given the reward. My general opinion is simple: when you have money always grow it. Just be sure to cover your ass and prepare for rain. Backtesting for this was done at portfoliovisualizer.com, the one caveat to this approach is that inflation and a lack of international exposure are a risk here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8beada6940fcd19d31b2e64fb168897f", "text": "If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. I have my back account (i.e. chequing account) and VISA account at/from the same bank (which, in my case, is the Royal Bank of Canada). I asked my bank to set up an automatic transfer, so that they automatically pay off my whole VISA balance every month, on time, by taking the money from my bank account. In that way I am never late paying the VISA so I never pay interest charges. IOW I use the VISA like a debit card; the difference is that it's accepted at some places where a debit card isn't (e.g. online, and for car rentals), and that the money is deducted from my bank account at the end of the month instead of immediately.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e9b83320e2974d6b5062a541df61241f	Is it advisable to go for an auto loan if I can make the full payment for a new car?	[ { "docid": "b49d0970285e5d57edafe60614d14bcf", "text": "Full payment is always better than auto-loan if you are prudent with finances. I.E if you take a loan, you are factoring the EMI hence your savings will remain as is. However if you manage well, you can buy the car with cash and at the same time put aside the notional EMI as savings and investments. The other factor to consider is what return your cash is giving. If this more than auto-loan interest rate post taxes, you should opt for loan. For example if auto-loan is 10% and you are getting a return of 15% after taxes on investment then loan is better. Company Car lease depends on terms. More often you get break on taxes on the EMI component. But you have to buy at the end of lease period and re-register the car in your name, so there is additional cost. Some companies give lease at very favourable rates. Plus if you leave the job lease has to be broken and it becomes more expensive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "593ddbf35037a9785c3b2d77afd8a566", "text": "There needs to be more numbers with your choices, without those any answer is purely speculation. Assuming that India is much like the US, you are almost always better to go with a company leased car. That is if you are not responsible for the lease if your employment ends with the company. Here in the US companies typically reimburse, so tax free, their employees for about 50 cents per mile, or about 31 cents per kilometer. This barely covers the gas and insurance and falls way short when one includes deprecation and maintenance. So it is better to have the company to pick up all those costs. Borrowing money on a car is just plain dumb no matter what the interest rate. So I would stick with choice number 1 or 3 depending on the arrangement for the company leased car. The next question becomes how much you should spend for a car? I would say enough to keep you happy and safe, but not much more than that until you are wealthy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d7947f59d989822b8d8222238a55e55", "text": "Without knowing the terms of the company leased car, it's hard to know if that would be preferable to purchasing a car yourself. So I'll concentrate on the two purchase options - getting a loan or paying in full from savings. If the goal is simply to minimize the amount paid for this car, then paying the full cost up-front is best, because it avoids the financing and interest charges associated with a loan. However, the money you would pay for this car would come out of somewhere (your savings). If your savings were in an investment earning a risk-adjusted return rate of, say, 5% APY and the loan cost 1% APY, you'd have more money in the long run by keeping as much money in your savings as possible, and paying the loan as slowly as possible, because the return rate on your savings is higher. Those numbers are theoretical, of course. You have to make a decision based on your expectation of the performance of your investments, and on the cost of the loan. But depending on your risk tolerance and the loan terms available to you, a loan may well make sense. This is especially true when loans costs are subsidized by manufacturers, who often offer favorable financing on new cars to drive demand. But even bank loans on cars can be pretty inexpensive because the car is a form of collateral with predictable future value. And finally, you should consider tax treatment -- not usually a consideration in purchases of cars by consumers in the US, but can vary due to business use and certainly may be different in India. See also: How smart is it to really be 100% debt free?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0216a3f4087ad61f309381cdde5f28f6", "text": "What percentage of your savings is the full car payment? If it's a significant chunk, then I'd finance some of the cost of the car in order to maintain liquidity.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a8749a180a0d266d8ec2a05865e9af19", "text": "\"The real answer is to talk to the bank. In the case of the last car loan I got, the answer is \"\"no\"\". When I asked them about rates, they gave me a printed sheet that listed the loan rates they offered based on how old the car was, period. I forget the exact numbers but it was like: New car: 4%, 1 year old: 4.5%, 2-3 years old 5%, etc. I suspect that at most banks these days, it's not up to the loan officer to come up with what he considers reasonable terms for a loan based on whatever factors you may bring up and he agrees are relevant. The bank is going to have a set policy, under these conditions, this is the rate, and that's what you get. So if the bank includes the size of the down payment in their calculations, then yes, it will be relevant. If they don't, than it won't. The thing to do would be to ask your bank. If you're only borrowing $2000, and you've managed to save up $11,000, I'd guess you can pay off the $2,000 pretty quickly. So as Keshlam says, the interest rate probably isn't all that important. If you can pay it off in a year, then the difference between 5% and 1% is only $80. If you're buying a $13,000 car, I can't imagine you're going to agonize over $80. BTW I've bought two cars in the last few years with about half the cost in cash and putting the rest on my credit card. (One for me and one for my daughter.) Then I paid off the credit card in a couple of months. Sure, the interest rate on a credit card is much higher than a car loan, but as it was only for a few months, it made very little real difference, and it took zero effort to arrange the loan and gave me total flexibility in the repayment schedule. Credit card companies often offer convenience checks where you pay like 3% or so transaction fee and then 0% interest for a year or more, so it would just cost the 3% up front fee.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76384f87eaa0952d8425ce9d84c3dd45", "text": "\"You have figured out most of the answers for yourself and there is not much more that can be said. From a lender's viewpoint, non-immigrant students applying for car loans are not very good risks because they are going to graduate in a short time (maybe less than the loan duration which is typically three years or more) and thus may well be leaving the country before the loan is fully paid off. In your case, the issue is exacerbated by the fact that your OPT status is due to expire in about one year's time. So the issue is not whether you are a citizen, but whether the lender can be reasonably sure that you will be gainfully employed and able to make the loan payments until the loan is fully paid off. Yes, lenders care about work history and credt scores but they also care (perhaps even care more) about the prospects for steady employment and ability to make the payments until the loan is paid off. Yes, you plan on applying for a H1-B visa but that is still in the future and whether the visa status will be adjusted is still a matter with uncertain outcome. Also, these are not matters that can be explained easily in an on-line application, or in a paper application submitted by mail to a distant bank whose name you obtained from some list of \"\"lenders who have a reliable track record of extending auto loans to non-permanent residents.\"\" For this reason, I suggested in a comment that you consider applying at a credit union, especially if there is an Employees' Credit Union for those working for your employer. If you go this route, go talk to a loan officer in person rather than trying to do this on the phone. Similarly, a local bank,and especially one where you currently have an account (hopefully in good standing), is more likely to be willing to work with you. Failing all this, there is always the auto dealer's own loan offers of financing. Finally, one possibility that you might want to consider is whether a one-year lease might work for you instead of an outright purchase, and you can buy a car after your visa issue has been settled.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cd61dc0b24ddb05e5df77719c29cbd3", "text": "Regardless of your circumstances, the amount of money you should put into a car is about $6000-8000 or the amount of cash you actually have, whichever is less. You can get a very reliable gently-used car in that price range, and a car that's plenty good to drive for basically whatever your budget is, down to about $1500-2000 or so. Spending more is never a financially sound decision; it's purely a luxury expenditure. Buying a car with a loan is always a financially bad decision.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d280f9654cc7e6f9132494b19bc1d4f", "text": "Not long after college in my new job I bought a used car with payments, I have never done that since. I just don't like having a car payment. I have bought every car since then with cash. You should never borrow money to buy a car There are several things that come into play when buying a car. When you are shopping with cash you tend to be more conservative with your purchases look at this Study on Credit card purchases. A Dunn & Bradstreet study found that people spend 12-18% more when using credit cards than when using cash. And McDonald's found that the average transaction rose from $4.50 to $7.00 when customers used plastic instead of cash. I would bet you if you had $27,000 dollars cash in your hand you wouldn't buy that car. You'd find a better deal, and or a cheaper car. When you finance it, it just doesn't seem to hurt as bad. Even though it's worse because now you are paying interest. A new car is just insanity unless you have a high net worth, at least seven figures. Your $27,000 car in 5 years will be worth about $6500. That's like striking a match to $340 dollars a month, you can't afford to lose that much money. Pay Cash If you lose your job, get hurt, or any number of things that can cost you money or reduce your income, it's no problem with a paid for car. They don't repo paid for cars. You have so much more flexibility when you don't have payments. You mention you have 10k in cash, and a $2000 a month positive cash flow. I would find a deal on a 8000 - 9000 car I would not buy from a dealer. Sell the car you have put that money with the positive cash flow and every other dime you can get at your student loans and any other debt you have, keep renting cheap keep the college lifestyle (broke) until you are completely out of debt. Then I would save for a house. Finally I would read this Dave Ramsey book, if I would have read this at your age, I would literally be a millionaire by now, I'm 37. Don't buy from a dealer Find a private sale car that you can get a deal on, pay less than Kelly Blue Book. Pay a little money $50 - 75 to have an automotive technician to check it out for you and get a car fax, to make sure there are no major problems. I have worked in the automotive industry for 20 + years and you rarely get a good deal from a dealer. “Everything popular is wrong.” Oscar Wilde", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fb7c86c1640590eceb4aff8ad47c4e1", "text": "So, in general, pay to the higher interest rate. Some contrived reasons you would want to pay your auto loan more could be:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d4e2921fe70ac4e499dd5d0c24be24c", "text": "A Lease is an entirely different way of getting a car. In two situations it makes sense, in all other scenarios it generally doesn't make sense to lease. In the case of always wanting a new car every 2 or 3 years it can make sense to lease. Of course if you drive more the allowed miles you will pay extra at the end of the lease. If you can take the monthly lease as a business expense leasing makes sense. Otherwise you want to pay cash, or get financing. Does zero percent make sense? Sometimes. The only way to make sense of the numbers is to start with your bank, have them approve of the loan first. Then armed with the maximum loan amount they will give you and the rate and the length of the loan, then visit the dealer. You have to run the numbers for your situation. It depends on your income, your other expenses, your credit score, your bank, what deal the dealership is running, how much you have for a down payment. Here is an example. For a recent loan situation I saw: 36 months, 1.49% rate, 20K loan, total interest paid: ~$466. Armed with that information can the person get a better deal at the dealership? There was only one way to find out. In that case the credit union was better. The rebate was larger than the interest paid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28a5ebedc1fc73c4189e58ac6d0ede89", "text": "There is no need to get an auto loan just to try and affect your credit score. It is possible to have a score over 800 without any sort of auto loan. If you can afford to pay for the vehicle up front that is the better option. Even with special financing incentives it is better to pay up front if you can. Yes it is possible to use the funds to make more if you finance with a silly low interest rate, however it's also possible to lose a job or have some other financial disaster happen and need that money for something else making it more difficult to make the payment. It may be just me but I find the peace of mind not having the payment to be worth a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72aae8e12b2fe135a24c39334b88a09a", "text": "\"Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car ? In my opinion, it depends on a lot of factors. If you have nothing to pay, and are not planning to invest in something that cost a lot soon (I.E an house, etc). Then I see no problem in put \"\"that much down on the car\"\". Remember that the more you pay at first, the less you will pay interest on. However, if you are planning on buying something big soon, then you might want to pay less and keep moneys for your future investment. I would honestly not finance a car with the garage as I find their interest rate to high. Possibilities depends a lot of your bank accounts, but what I would personally do is pay it cash using my credit margin with the bank which is only 2.8% interest rate. Garage where I live rarely finance under 7% interest rate. You may not have a credit margin, but maybe you could get a loan with the bank instead ? Many bank keep an history of your loan which will get you a better credit name when trying to buy an home later. On the other side, having a good credit name is not really useful in a garage. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I don't think it is possible to give a real answer to this as it change a lot around the world. However, I would recommend to simply compare with the interest rate asked when being loan by the bank.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5edb07a608b5d2a227f966321bf0d408", "text": "Generally speaking, buying a fancy new car out of college is dumb. Buying a 3 year old flashy car with a 60 month loan is going to eat up your income, and when the thing starts breaking down, you'll get sick of buying $900 mufflers and $1,000 taillights pretty quickly. Buy a car that nobody wants for cheap and save up some money. Then buy yourself your dream car. Edit based on question update. You're posting to a Q&A site about money, and you're asking if spending over $30k (don't forget taxes) on a luxury car when you're making $60k is a good idea. You have car fever, and you're trying to sell this transaction as a good deal from a financial POV. At the end of the day, there is no scenario where buying an expensive car is a good financial transaction. For example, since you're planning on driving too many miles for a lease to make sense, the certified pre-owned warranty is a non-factor, because you'll have no warranty when the car breaks down in 4 years. The only reason CPO programs exist is to boost residual values to make leases more attractive -- luxury car makers are in the car leasing (as opposed to selling) business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13c784beb80c23267dd7392e8d5b5027", "text": "For a lease, your payment is a function of sale price minus residual value. If the car has a low residual value then the lease payments will be higher. If it has a high residual value then lease payments will be lower but the purchase price at the end of the lease will be higher (potentially even higher than the KBB of the car). There is no gaming the system. Whether you buy now or lease now and buy later, you will be paying for the entire car. Calculate the payments in both scenarios with appropriate interest rates/money factors, sale price, and residual value. This will demonstrate there is no free lunch to be had here. Also, don't forget that financing the vehicle after a three year lease will probably mean a higher interest rate than if you were to finance it all now. With a purchase now you will likely get more favorable financing terms and be able to talk them down on sale price. Leasing will not allow such flexibility generally. Tldr No, that's not how it works. If you plan on owning the car for the duration of a loan (e.g. 5 years) it will be cheaper to just finance now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a4e4589e77150edb6090a7c725d0b86", "text": "I am going to give advice that is slightly differently based on my own experiences. First, regarding the financing, I have found that the dealers do in fact have access to the best interest rates, but only after negotiating with a better financing offer from a bank. When I bought my current car, the dealer was offering somewhere around 3.3%, which I knew was way above the current industry standard and I knew I had good credit. So, like I did with my previous car and my wife's car, I went to local and national banks, came back with deals around 2.5 or 2.6%. When I told the dealer, they were able to offer 2.19%. So it's ok to go with the dealer's financing, just never take them at face value. Whatever they offer you and no matter how much they insist it's the best deal, never believe it! They can do better! With my first car, I had little credit history, similar to your situation, and interest rates were much higher then, like 6 - 8%. The dealer offered me 10%. I almost walked out the door laughing. I went to my own bank and they offered me 8%, which was still high, but better than 10%. Suddenly, the dealer could do 7.5% with a 0.25% discount if I auto-pay through my checking account. Down-payment wise, there is nothing wrong with a 35% down payment. When I purchased my current car, I put 50% down. All else being equal, the more cash down, the better off you'll be. The only issue is to weigh that down payment and interest rate against the cost of other debts you may have. If you have a 7% student loan and the car loan is only 3%, you're better off paying the minimum on the car and using your cash to pay down your student loan. Unless your student loan balance is significantly more than the 8k you need to finance (like a 20k or 30k loan). Also remember that a car is a depreciating asset. I pay off cars as fast as I can. They are terrible debt to have. A home can rise in value, offsetting a mortgage. Your education keeps you employed and employable and will certainly not make you dumber, so that is a win. But a car? You pay $15k for a car that will be worth $14k the next day and $10k a year from now. It's easy to get underwater with a car loan if the down payment is small, interest rate high, and the car loses value quickly. To make sure I answer your questions: Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car? If you can afford it and it will not interfere with repayment of much higher interest debts, then yes. A car loan is a major liability, so if you can minimize the debt, you'll be better off. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I am not a banker, loan officer, or dealer, so I cannot answer this with much credibility. But given today's market, 2.5 - 4% seems reasonable. Do you think I'll get approved? Probably, but only one way to find out!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29248fc376b5f475c8312f03cb2bada4", "text": "If you don't need to own a car for other reasons (i.e. if you are perfectly fine using Lyft and public transport), a new car loan should have just as much effect on your credit score as, say, opening a new credit card. Your credit score would take a temporary dip because of the hard inquiry to acquire the card, but your number of credit accounts would increase, and your credit utilization rate would go down, both of which are good things for your credit score. There may be better ways to increase your credit score that others know about, but I don't think getting a car loan when you don't need a car is the best one. Note, this assumes that you are paying all your credit cards off in full every month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "908bb1c1bfc0b6588872a25b38b982be", "text": "I think you are a little confused. If you have 10.000€ in cash for a car, but you decide instead to invest that money and take out a loan for the car at 2,75% interest, you would have to withdraw/sell 178€ each month from your investment to make your loan payment. If you made exactly 2,75% on your investment, you would be left with 0€ in your investment when the loan was paid off. If your investment did better than 2,75%, you would come out ahead, and if your investment did worse than 2,75%, you would have lost money on your decision. Having said all that, I don't recommend borrowing money to buy a car, especially if you have that amount of cash set aside for the car. Here are some of the reasons: Sometimes people feel better about spending large amounts of money if they can pay it off over time, rather than spending it all at once. They tell themselves that they will come out ahead with their investments, or they will be earning more later, or some other story to make themselves feel better about overspending. If getting the loan is allowing you to spend more money on a car than you would spend if you were paying cash, then you will not come out ahead by investing; you would be better off to spend a smaller amount of money now. I don't know where you are in the world, but where I come from, you cannot get a guaranteed investment that pays 2,75%. So there will be risk involved; if the next year is a bad one for your investment, then your investment losses combined with your withdrawals for your car payments could empty your investment before the car is paid off. Conversely, by skipping the 2,75% loan and paying cash for your car, you have essentially made a guaranteed 2,75% on this money, comparatively speaking. I don't know what the going rate is for car loans where you are, but often car dealers will give you a low loan rate in exchange for a higher sales price. As a result, you might think that you can easily invest and beat the loan rate, but it is a false comparison because you overpaid for the car.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cc41e5f9dfa3cd2344fc7977f6f5230", "text": "There are several factors here. Firstly, there's opportunity cost, i.e. what you would get with the money elsewhere. If you have higher interest opportunities (investing, paying down debt) elsewhere, you could be paying that down instead. There's also domino effects: by reducing your liquid savings to or below the minimum, you can't move any of it into tax advantaged retirement accounts earning higher interest. Then there's the insurance costs. You are required to buy extra insurance to protect your lender. You should factor in the extra insurance you would buy vs the insurance required. Given that you can buy the car yourself, catastrophic insurance may not be necessary, or you may prefer a higher deductible than your lender will allow. If you're not sufficiently capitalized, you may need gap insurance to cover when your car depreciates faster than your loan is paid down. A 30 percent payment should be enough to not need it though. Finally, there's some value in having options. If you have the loan and the cash, you can likely pay it off without penalty. But it will be harder to get the loan if you don't finance it. Maybe you can take out a loan against the car later, but I haven't looked into the fees that might incur. If it's any help, I'm in the last stretch of a 3 year car loan. At the time paying in cash wasn't an option, and having done it I recognize that it's more complicated than it seems.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "489e404056f757fa10948fe9ba49e6e7", "text": "I know folks who have had two personal (chap. 7 both times) bankruptcies in the U.S., including one after the bankruptcy reforms of a few years ago. I did have the 10-year thing wrong, though. It's once every eight years for a chap. 7 liquidation, and once every six years for Chap. 13 restructuring.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3e0f7bf5fba9ecc72ebc7d4b44e79190	US Bank placing a hold on funds from my paycheck deposit: Why does that make sense?	[ { "docid": "9781524bf267c26ed2f913336063da22", "text": "It is possible that they only do the hold on the first deposit from a given source. It is probably worth asking if they intend to do the hold on every paycheck or just the first one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bb78deeb91af610c9616f3121904d4e", "text": "\"First, congratulations on the paycheck! :-) On the holds: Is it possible that by allowing your account balance to go negative (into overdraft) that you triggered such treatment of your account? Perhaps the bank is being more cautious with your account since that happened. Just how long did you have their $150 on hold? ;-) Or, perhaps it's not you specifically but the bank is being more cautious due to credit conditions that have been prevalent these last years. Consider: allowing you to cash a check immediately – when it technically hasn't cleared yet – is a form of credit. Maybe it isn't you they don't trust well enough yet, but the company that issued the check? Checks bounce, and not by fault of the depositor. I once had a new account, years ago, and discovered a 5 day hold on deposits. The irony was it was a check drawn on the same bank! I called my banker and asked about it – and suggested I'd take my business back to my old bank. I was in the process of applying for a mortgage with the new bank. Holds were removed. But you may have some trouble with the \"\"I'll walk\"\" technique given the climate and your recent overdraft situation and no leverage – or if you do have some leverage, consider using it. But before you assume anything, I would, as JohnFx suggested, ask your bank about it. Pay your branch a visit in person and talk to the manager. Phone calls to customer service may be less successful. If it's not a big issue and more a minor technical policy one, the bank may remove the holds. If they won't, the manager ought to tell you why, and what you can do to solve it eventually.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "64145ff9c1322efb673cce526bb70180", "text": "I'd suggest you contact the Office of the Controller of Currency, who regulates BOA and file a complaint. This whole deal seems shady. According to the OCC FAQ, the fact that they closed the account is in their prerogative. However, I would think they are obligated to quickly return your funds, but can't find anything specific to that. The banks are very sensitive to having complaints filed against them, so if nothing else this may encourage them to be more helpful, even if your complaint isn't actionable. OCC Complaint Process. This topic on how long a bank can hold a large deposit before making funds available may also be helpful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4dda835616037c706767369d1efac27a", "text": "\"See \"\"Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited.\"\" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal. Let me offer a pre-emptive \"\"I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, \"\"We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,\"\" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right.\"\" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fdb07dc08015b2b1f9f1c3c89777d96", "text": "\"The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to \"\"hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!\"\" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: \"\"soft holds\"\" and \"\"hard holds\"\". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, \"\"Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?\"\" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an \"\"Account Balance\"\" and an \"\"Available Balance\"\", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's \"\"available\"\" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely \"\"reserved\"\" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual \"\"money in my account\"\" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with. And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees. To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to \"\"reserve\"\" or \"\"rent\"\" anything, ever.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ab045a99c76a8f6c9dac6c9730b8bab", "text": "Yes, but it's a matter of paper trail and lifestyle. Your $600K guy may get questioned when he makes the deposit, but would show the record of having that money elsewhere. People buy cars with cash (a check) all the time. The guy filing a tax return claiming little to no income or no return at all, is more likely to get flagged than the $100K+ earning couple who happened to be able to save to buy their $25K car every 10 years with cash. On reading the article, the bank had its own concerns. The guy who was trying to withdraw the money was elderly, and the bank seemed pretty concerned to make sure he wasn't about to be scammed. It may not be spelled out as such, but a custodian of one's money does have an obligation to not be party to a potential scam, and the very request for such a huge sum of money in cash is a red flag.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd9081176933e2641a2f1b33dbb4db91", "text": "This just happened to me with a Wells Fargo Bill Pay check. WF put a stop payment on the check. The money was taken out of my account immediately yet it is going to take 3-5 days to reappear in the account. I question these banking practices. Georgia Bank and Trust Company of GA does not do this. The Bill Pay check is processed just like a hand written check; when the check clears the bank your account is debited. If it is an Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) then the money does come out of your account immediately, of course. These are acceptable banking practices to me. I will be closing the Wells Fargo account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee7d29d8d03cac74c46e680675b027e5", "text": "These unclaimed wages were presumably yours for the taking in Year X when employer paid your other wages. Maybe this is just about uncashed paychecks. In that case, they would have appeared on your W-2 for that year. If you filed your return including that W-2 income, then this is likely not new income. This would be a constructive receipt evaluation. Income occurs when you have the right to income, whether or not you have actual receipt of it. For example, if you are paid via cash drops into a piggy bank but you wait a week (for the start of a new tax period) to withdraw your cash from the piggy bank, then the money was constructively received on the day it went into the piggy bank. This prevents taxpayers from structuring their actual receipt of income, for tax purposes or otherwise, in ways at odds with their true economic position. You can't delay taxable income that is legally yours simply by refusing to accept it when you have the right to it. The wages were income at the time your employer proffered the paycheck. You did not cash it, but I suspect that you filed it on that year's taxes. There's a slight wrinkle that when the check went stale your ability to access the money was not so straightforward. However, you still had the legal right to the money, so my perspective is that the analysis did not change when the check went stale.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eaec0527d5e0ab0cafc2ab3505c52c0c", "text": "If I understand correctly you describe putting a hold on an appartment as such: A sum of money that you give to the owner of the appartment to let them hold it for you because you are probably going to rent. In case you back out of the deal, this money can mitigate the expected loss from turning down other candidates. After asking them to hold the appartment for you, you decided not to rent. Also, you used the bank to get back the hold sum. Regardless of the legal details, it seems very clear to me that after putting down a hold and walking away, you should not get the money back. There may have been some things that distracted/confused you (call about the key), but if you actually look at the things that happened it seems both right and practical to pay them their reclaimed hold as soon as possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d0c97675c2f6fdd54208ed1b33c5fdf", "text": "Banks do not report transactions within accounts except as required by law, usually as part of anti-money-laundering efforts. Generally those involve tracking large cash transactions. As far as large payments go, there are two reasons they might be reported to the government: taxes, and criminal investigations. For tax purposes, if the payment is considered a salary or wage (that is, you are an employee of the company and the payment is for your time working there), then the company paying you is responsible for reporting the wage and withholding applicable taxes from your salary. If you are considered an independent contract employee, then you yourself will be responsible for reporting the income to the IRS and paying the applicable taxes yourself. In the second case, unless you are already under investigation, I wouldn't worry about it. Banks are very touchy about financial records being kept private, and won't release them without a subpoena. One caveat is that this is under US law. Banks which maintain branches in multiple countries must, of course, comply with all local laws in the jurisdiction where they do business. The take away from this is that Bank of America is unlikely to report a single deposit of $75,000 into your account to anyone on their own. If it is a paper check being deposited they will probably place a hold on it to make sure it clears, but that is all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ba2969a7b4b350271253af65cef00dd", "text": "For those who don't know, credit card checks are blank checks that your credit card company sends you. When you fill them out and spend them, you are taking a cash advance on your credit card account. You should be aware that taking a cash advance on your credit card normally has extra fees and finance charges above what you have with regular credit card transactions. That having been said, when you take one of these to your bank and try to deposit them, it is entirely up to bank policy how long they will make you wait to use these funds. They want to be sure that it is a legitimate check and that it will be honored. If your teller doesn't know the answer to that question, you'll need to find someone at the bank who does. If you don't like the answer they give you, you'll need to find another bank. I would think that if the credit card is from Chase, and you are trying to deposit a credit card check into a Chase checking account, they should be able to do that instantly. However, bank policy doesn't always make sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d87252e194065137eb7e8a9f4772b530", "text": "The victim never actually receives the money, so that is not an option. The scammer generates the transaction using a fraudulent check. Once the check is found to be fraudulent the chain of involved banks claw the money back (which is the bank's money, not the scammer's). So, what happens is the victim sees a deposit in their account, but it is not real, it is a conditional deposit by the bank made on the assumption that the payment is good (which it is not). When the victim endorses a check, they are guaranteeing to the bank that they consider the check good and vouching for the check. That is why the bank credits the victim's account, because the victim has vouched for the check. When the check later turns out to be fraudulent, the victim owes the bank money. In theory, people who endorse a fraudulent check could be criminally prosecuted, but that does not happen normally.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2df7330af4b3b2e7c527eca5d177db4", "text": "\"As to where the interest comes from: The same place it comes from in other kinds of savings accounts. The bank takes the money you deposit and invests it elsewhere, traditionally by lending it out to others (hence the concept of a \"\"savings and loan\"\" bank). They make a profit as long as the interest they give for \"\"borrowing\"\" from you, plus the cost of administering the savings accounts and loans, is less than the interest they charge for lending to others. No, they don't have to pay you interest -- but if they didn't, you'd be likely to deposit your funds at another bank which did. Their ideal goal is to pay as little as possible without losing depositors, while charging as much as possible without losing borrowers. (yeah, I know, typo corrected) Why do they get higher interest rate than they pay you? Mostly because your deposits and interest are essentially guaranteed, whereas the folks they're lending to may be late paying or default on those loans. As with any kind of investment, higher return requires more work and/or higher risk, plus (ususally) larger reserves so you can afford to ride out any losses that do occur.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec9bbffb3de74756544e9883b0955746", "text": "Just FYI for the benefit of future users. Haven't been paid yet nor have I paid but some interesting facts. I decided to sign the contract with the person who approached me. The contract seemed harmless whereby I only transfer money once I retrieve the funds. Thanks to your comments here I also understood that I must make sure the funds really cleared in my account and can never be cancelled before I transfer anything. He gave me the information of the check that matched my previous employer and made sense as it was a check issues just after I had left my job and the state. I did not used the contact details he provided me, but rather found the direct contact details of the go to person in my last institution and contacted them. I still haven't been able to reclaim the funds, but that is due to internal problems between the state comptroller and my institution. Will come back to update if I am ever successful, but the bottom line is that it is probably not a scam. I am waiting for the final resolution of the case before I post the name of the company which approached me (if it is at all OK per the discussion board rules)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa9db0e5e90fb6f0b02e793dc44bd6cf", "text": "Remote Deposit usually means a scanner and some software and has a monthly fee associated with it (so it only makes sense for businesses, and even then only some businesses). Chase and USAA allow you to make deposits via your iPhone which is aimed at consumers and has some deposit limits associated with it (checks have to be less than some $$). I've used both. Remote Deposit is super easy, the software usually sucks, but it's too expensive for personal users ($60/month at citibank). Chase deposits have worked on my iPhone usually after 2 or 3 tries but that did save me from walking to the bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "033cc75052b075d066d1a2b1420dfe42", "text": "\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \"\"reserve\"\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \"\"The Fed\"\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \"\"run\"\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \"\"bank\"\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70e04ae623489ace987557576c29b943", "text": "Banks can't simply make loans in the void. This is how the cash flow works, generally: 1. Depositers add cash into the bank. The Bank now has cash. 10% of that cash is held on reserve per law. This cash is held on the balance sheet as an asset (cash) and a liability (demand deposits). 2. Someone requests a loan. The loan is funded from the non-reserved cash of these deposits. This results in a lessening of an asset (cash), and the creation of a new asset (loan). 3. Traditionally, as the debtor pays back the loan, the interest is distributed in some sort of split between the bank and the depositors. This means cash in from the loan and interest, and a liability (deposits) also go up. 4. Alternatively, while the above still happens, the bank can securitize the loan and sell that to investors. Investors then get access to the loan and its income, and the bank collects a fee. However, this means more cash on hand for the bank to originate additional loans without going near the reserve requirement. If a bank extends too many loans and its reserve is threatened, it must borrow either from the fed or from other banks. These loans must be paid back.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8f8b38fce0c23ed86623d0020c9a0100	Determining current value for real estate for inheritance purposes	[ { "docid": "7393ce2893e7aafc863b32950e7bcc64", "text": "My question is... how is this new value determined? Does it go off of the tax appraised value? The tax assessors values are based on broad averages and are not very useful in determining actual home value. The most defensible valuation outside of a sale is a professional appraisal, real-estate agents may or may not give you reasonable estimates, but their opinions are less valuable than that of a professional appraiser. Additionally, agents hoping to land you as a client (even if you tell them you're not trying to sell) could be motivated to over-estimate. In many instances a few opinions from agents will be good enough, but if there is any contention a professional appraisal will be better. Should you, prior to your death, get an independent appraiser to appraise the value of the property and include that assessment of the properties value with the will or something? The real-estate market fluctuates too much to make having an appraisal done prior to your death a practical approach in most circumstances. You could make arrangements so that an appraisal would be scheduled after your death. Here's a good resource on the topic: Estimating the Value of Inherited Real Estate", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aef81cf44ab4afae962e42919029e98d", "text": "There are multiple ways of determining the value of an inherited property. If you aren't planning on selling it, then the best way would be to have a real estate agent do a comp on the property (or multiple real estate agents).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd309655aa90943cc7b78f7413c835ec", "text": "\"how is this new value determined? According to Publication 551: Inherited Property The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following. The FMV of the property at the date of the individual's death. The FMV on the alternate valuation date if the personal representative for the estate chooses to use alternate valuation. For information on the alternate valuation date, see the Instructions for Form 706. The value under the special-use valuation method for real property used in farming or a closely held business if chosen for estate tax purposes. This method is discussed later. FMV is Fair Market Value - which is the price that a willing buyer would pay for the property with reasonable knowledge of all the facts of the property. The rest generally apply to farmland or other special-purpose land where the amount of income it generates is not properly reflected in the market value. One or more real estate professionals will run \"\"comps\"\" that show you recent sales in the same area for similar houses to get a rough estimate of fair market value. Does it go off of the tax appraised value? Tax assessment may or may not be accurate depending on tax laws (e.g. limits to tax increases) and consistency with the actual market. Should you, prior to your death, get an independent appraiser to appraise the value of the property and include that assessment of the properties value with the will or something? That should not be necessary - another appraisal will likely be done as part of the estate process after death. One reason you might do one is if you are distributing different assets to different heirs, and you want to make sure that the estate is divided equitably.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8f1a7fee098a6c8d9d463a50aedf3169", "text": "I have inherited property worth close to 1 million US Dollars. 1 Million USD is a large amount considering Bangladesh. Around 80 Million Taka; making someone with this amount amongst the high net worth individual. Check if this is not a scam as indicated in comments. What is the proper procedure for him to send me the money to US? As per Bangladesh Foreign Exchange Regulation Act; there are limitations to transfer of funds outside of Bangladesh. Read the detail guideline, section 11 Private Remittance is relevant. However your specific case is not detailed. A professional help is advised as there would be paperwork required. What are our legal and tax obligations? Tax obligations in US, as indicated by Michael in his answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbd1a2097c5aeb76cde239c4c6b9ec34", "text": "Assuming you're in the US, you can buy the house from your parents for $100k with a mortgage, and the excess value (less annual gift limit) will count against your unified federal gift and estate tax exemption. So at $300k value you'd take $172k against your total exemption ($200k value over price paid, less $14k per parent). No gift tax liability on your parents' end, unless the exemption has already been used up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c091e3281e221f90416b841dccd337be", "text": "Ok maybe I should have went into further detail but I'm not interested in a single point estimate to compare the different options. I want to look at the comparable NPVs for the two different options for a range of exit points (sell property / exit lease and sell equity shares). I want to graph the present values of each (y-axis being the PVs and x-axis being the exit date) and look at the 'cross-over' point where one option becomes better than the other (i'm taking into account all of the up front costs of the real estate purchase which will be a bit different in the first years). i'm also looking to do the same for multiple real estate and equity scenarios, in all likelihood generate a distribution of cross-over points. this is all theoretical, i'm not really going to take the results to heart. merely an exercise and i'm tangling with the discount rates at the moment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fefedb73e7061bab2a239618cd3b88c2", "text": "It looks to me like this is a 'call an attorney' situation, which is always a good idea in situations like this (family legal disputes). But, some information. First off, if your family is going to take the car, you certainly won't need to make payments on it any more at that point, in my opinion. If the will goes through probate (which is the only way they'd really be able to take it), the probate judge should either leave you with the car and the payments, or neither (presumably requiring the family to pay off the loan and settle your interest in the car). Since the car has negative net value, it seems unlikely that the probate judge would take the car away from you, but who knows. Either way, if they do take the car away from you, they'll be doing you a service: you have a $6,000 car that you owe $12,000 on. Let them, and walk away and buy another car for $6,000. Second, I'm not sure they would be allowed to in any event. See the Illinois DMV page on correcting titles in the case of a deceased owner; Illinois I believe is a joint tenancy state, meaning that once one owner dies, the other just gets the car (and the loan, though the loan documents would cover that). Unless you had an explicit agreement with your grandfather, anyway. From that page: Joint Ownership A title in the names of two or more persons is considered to be in joint tenancy. Upon the death of one of them, the surviving joint tenant(s) becomes the owner(s) of the vehicle by law. Third, your grandfather can fix all of this fairly easily by mentioning the disposition of the car and loan in his will, if he's still mentally competent and wishes to do so. If he transfers his ownership of the car to you in the will, it seems like that would be that (though again, it's not clear that the ownership wouldn't just be yours anyway). Finally, I am not a lawyer, and I am not your lawyer, so do not construe any of the text of this post as legal advice; contact a lawyer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98a515cbd0567da8e4039af7b5522f27", "text": "That's tricky, actually. First, as the section 1015 that you've referred to in your other question says - you take the lowest of the fair market value or the actual donor basis. Why is it important? Consider these examples: So, if the relative bought you a brand new car and you're the first title holder (i.e.: the relative paid, but the car was registered directly to you) - you can argue that the basis is the actual money paid. In essence you got a money gift that you used to purchase the car. If however the relative bought the car, took the title, and then drove it 5 miles to your house and signed the title over to you - the IRS can argue that the car basis is the FMV, which is lower because it is now a used car that you got. You're the second owner. That may be a significant difference, just by driving off the lot, the car can lose 10-15% of its value. If you got a car that's used, and the donor gives it to you - your basis is the fair market value (unless its higher than the donor's basis - in which case you get the donor's basis). You always get the lowest basis for losses (and depreciation is akin to a loss). Now consider the situation when your relative is a business owner and used the car for business. He didn't take the depreciation, but he was entitled to. IRS can argue that the fact that he didn't take is irrelevant and reduce the donor's basis by the allowable depreciation. That may bring your loss basis to below the FMV. I suggest you take it to a tax professional licensed in your state who will check all the facts and circumstances of your situation. Your relative might be slapped with a gift tax as well, if the car FMV is above certain amount (currently the exemption is $14000).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8458e6ebcc66911b291d37d15bc50a86", "text": "To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance. The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market. Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep? And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties. Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3fe170659b60a113ae2d15c1805cd66", "text": "Assuming the stock was worth more at the time she gave it to you than when she bought it, the cost basis would be the amount that she bought it for. You would then pay tax on the increase in value from that time. Generally it's better to inherit assets than receive them as gifts, since the cost basis of inherited assets is raised to the value at the time of the death of the one leaving the inheritance. You will probably need to find some record of the original amount paid so you can determine the right cost basis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfbce967b0ac112361a262d4f6d7aa3d", "text": "\"You uncle is liable to pay \"\"Capital-Gains\"\" tax. Essentially the sale price less of cost would be treated as gains. The gains are taxed at 10% without indexation and 20% with Indexation. The capital gains tax can be avoided if your uncle invests the gains into specified \"\"Infrastructure bonds\"\" or buys another property within a period of 3 years. The funds need to be kept in a separate \"\"Capital Gains\"\" account and not a regular savings account till you buy another property within 3 years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94c395ca34857ffc3bbd9d17f8bc8c7d", "text": "I think you are trying to figure out what will be a break-even rental rate for you, so that then you can decide whether renting at current market rates is worth it for you. This is tricky to determine because future valuations are uncertain. You can make rough estimates though. The most uncertain component is likely to be capital appreciation or depreciation (increase or decrease in the value of your property). This is usually a relatively large number (significant to the calculation). The value is uncertain because it depends on predictions of the housing market. Future interest rates or economic conditions will likely play a major role in dictating the future value of your home. Obviously there are numerous other costs to consider such as maintenance, tax and insurance some of which may be via escrow and included in your mortgage payment. Largest uncertainty in terms of income are the level of rent and occupancy rate. The former is reasonably predictable, the latter less so. Would advise you make a spreadsheet and list them all out with margins of error to get some idea. The absolute amount you are paying on the mortgage is a red herring similar to when car dealers ask you what payment you can afford. That's not what's relevant. What's relevant is the Net Present Value of ALL the payments in relation to what you are getting in return. Note that one issue with assessing your cost of capital is, what's your opportunity cost. ie. if you didn't have the money tied up in real estate, what could you be earning with it elsewhere? This is not really part of the cost of capital, but it's something to consider. Also note that the total monthly payment for the mortgage is not useful to your calculations because a significant chunk of the payment will likely be to pay down principal and as such represents no real cost to you (its really just a transfer - reducing your bank balance but increasing your equity in the home). The interest portion is a real cost to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "758e9f0bd55421d57f89a77664517fac", "text": "When property changes hands the sale prices may or may not be used to determine the appraised value of the property, and they may or may not be used to determine the appraised value of other properties. Because of the nature of the transaction: you already have an existing business relationship, the local government is likely to ignore the data point provided by your transaction when determining values of similar properties. They have no idea if there was some other factor used to determine the price. They will also not include in the calculation transactions that are a result of foreclosure becasue the target price is the loan value not the true value. California and some other jurisdictions do add another wrinkle. You will need to determine if the transaction will trigger a reevaluation of the property value. In some states the existing laws of the state limited the annual growth of the assessment, but that could now be recaptured if the jurisdiction rules that this is a new ownership: California Board of Equalization - Change in Ownership - Frequently Asked Questions How does a change in ownership affect property taxes? Each county assessor's office reviews all recorded deeds for that county to determine which properties require reappraisal under the law. The county assessors may also discover changes in ownership through other means, such as taxpayer self-reporting, field inspections, review of building permits and newspapers. Once the county assessor has determined that a change in ownership has occurred, Proposition 13 requires the county assessor to reassess the property to its current fair market value as of the date ownership changed. Since property taxes are based on the assessed value of a property at the time of acquisition, a current market value that is higher than the previously assessed Proposition 13 adjusted base year value will increase the property taxes. Conversely, if the current market value is lower than the previously assessed Proposition 13 adjusted base year value, then the property taxes on that property will decrease. Only that portion of the property that changes ownership, however, is subject to reappraisal. For example, if 50 percent of the property is transferred, the assessor will reassess only 50 percent of the property at its current fair market value as of the date of the transfer, and deduct 50 percent from any existing Proposition 13 base year value. In most cases, when a person buys a residence, the entire property undergoes a change in ownership and 100 percent of the property is reassessed to its current market value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "111f74c4834d4b8adee65a1ad58c9d5f", "text": "There are many different reasons to buy property and it's important to make a distinction between commercial and residential property. Historically owning property has been part of the American dream, for multiple reasons. But to answer your questions, value is not based on the age of the building (however it can be in a historic district). In addition the price of something and it's value may or may not be directly related for each individual buyer/owner (because that becomes subjective). Some buildings can lose there value as time passes, but the depends on multiple factors (area, condition of the building, overall economy, etc.) so it's not that easy to give a specific answer to a general question. Before you buy property amongst many things it's important to determine why you want to buy this property (what will be it's principal use for you). That will help you determine if you should buy an old or new property, but that pales in comparison to if the property will maintain and gain in value. Also if your looking for an investment look into REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust). These can be great. Why? Because you don't actually have to carry the mortgage. Which makes that ideal for people who want to own property but not have to deal with the everyday ins-and-outs of the responsibility of ownership....like rising cost. It's important to note that the cost of purchase and cost of ownership are two different things but invariably linked when buying anything in the material strata of our world. You can find publicly traded REITs on the major stock exchanges. Hope that helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4de70d581061d6bf240c21767d96b9f8", "text": "You say that one property is 65% of the value of the two properties and the other is 35%. But how much of that do the two of you actually own? If you have co-signed mortgages on both properties, then your equity is going to be lower. If you sold both properties, then your take away would be just half of that equity. And while the 35% property may be less valuable, if you bought it first, it may actually have more equity. It's the equity that matters here, not the value of the property. With a mortgage, the bank is more of an owner than you are until you've paid down most of the loan. You may find that the bank won't agree to a single-owner refinance. A co-signed mortgage is a lot easier for them to collect, as they can hold either of you responsible for the entire loan. If you sell the 65% property, then you can pay off any mortgage on that property and use the equity payout from that to buy out your relative on the 35% property. If you currently have no mortgage, you'd even have cash back. This is your fewest strings option. Let's say that you have no mortgage now. So this mortgage would be the only mortgage on the property. It's not so much, as 15:65 is 3:13 or 18.75% of the value of the property. That's more of a home equity loan than a mortgage. You should be able to get a good rate. It might reduce your short term profit, but it should be survivable if you have other income. If you don't have other income, then seriously consider selling the 65% property and diversifying the payout into something else. E.g. stocks and bonds. Perhaps your relative would be willing to float you the loan. That would save you bank fees and closing costs. Write up a contract and agree to take assignment of the title at payoff. You'll need to pay a lawyer to write up the contract (paying a modest amount now to cover the various future possibilities), but that should still be cheaper. There's a certain amount of trust required on both sides, but this gives you some separation. And of course it takes your relative out of the day-to-day management entirely. Perhaps the steady flow of cash would provide what they need. If your relative is willing to remain that involved, that can work. Note that they may not want to do this, so don't get too attached to the idea. Be prepared for a no. This would be a great option for you, as you pretty much get everything you have now. They get back the time meeting with you to make decisions, but they also give up control over those decisions. Some people would not like that tradeoff. The one time I was involved with a professional managing a property for me, the fee was around 7% of the rent. If that fits your area, you might reasonably charge 5%. That gives a discount for family and not being a professional. There's a relatively easy way to find out what fits your area. Look around and see what companies offer multiple listings. Call until you find a couple that will do management for you. Get quotes for managing your properties. Now you'll know the amounts. The big failing though is that this may not describe the issue that your relative has. If the real problem is that the two of you have different approaches to property management, then making you the only decision maker may be the wrong direction. This is certainly financially feasible, but it still may not be the right solution for your relationship. If you get a no on this, I'd recommend moving on to other solutions immediately. This may simply be too favorable to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49f29b55b33e9105340e11bfb78539e9", "text": "You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates. If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer. In a comment, you proposed: Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20[number of shares]([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true. And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs. Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs. So this isn't exactly a free lunch either. But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held. Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever. Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax. This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "463d5ca31f9aa13617f4369749831f69", "text": "No it's not, not until a disposition. Keep track of the CAD value on the day you receive the inheritance and get an average cost. Then every time you go to the US and spend some money, record the CAD value on the day you spend it. The difference is your profit or loss. There is no capital gain as long as you don't spend it. Now this may seem ridiculous, especially since none of this is reported to the CRA. They realize this and say the first $200 profit or loss is not taxable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7488478ce920b35c3d40540eac3f9dfc", "text": "Most modern bank accounts can be set up to automatically pay bills for anyone, even someone who has no control over the account. This account would be in a trustee's name for the untrustworthy party. An automatic transfer could be set up from the source account to the irresponsible party's bank account to pay their allowance. It would be wise to remove all overdraft capability from the recipients account, but the whole system might help them learn some responsibility. There are more formal legal structures for forming a long term care-taking trust (with spendthrift provisions to protect the trust from legal action). The trust would need to be maintained by a trustee, resulting in maintenance fees on the principle. It might also help to know if there are legally recognized factors that impair the beneficiaries ability to take care of themselves (substance abuse, depression, age, mental impairment, etc.), but depending on state law, trusts can be designed very flexibly to cover the lifetime of an heir and even their heirs.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d1a7532ef1032b047c63db4b82fdc953	Could the loan officer deny me even if I have the money as a first time home buyer?	[ { "docid": "c7ef1a2fdbb1359261574b34d2c11589", "text": "A financial institution is not obligated to offer you a loan. They will only offer you a loan if they believe that they will make money off you. They use all the info available in order to determine if offering you a loan is profitable. In short, whether they offer you a loan, and the interest rate they charge for that loan, is based on a few things: How much does it cost the bank to borrow money? [aka: how much does the bank need to pay people who have savings accounts with them?]; How much does the bank need to spend in order to administer the loan? [ie: the loan officer's time, a little time for the IT guy who helps around the office, office space they are renting in order to allow the transaction to take place]; and How many people will 'default' and never be able to repay their loan? [ex: if 1 out of 100 people default on their loans, then every one of those 100 loans needs to be charged an extra 1% in order to recover the money the bank will lose on the person who defaults]. What we are mostly interested in here is #3: how likely are you to default? The bank determines that by determining your income, your assets, your current debts outstanding, your past history with payments (also called a credit score), and specifically to mortgages, how much the house is worth. If you don't have a long credit history, and because you don't have a long income history, and because you are putting <10% down on the condo [20% is often a good % to strive for, and paying less than that can often imply you will need mandatory mortgage insurance, depending on jurisdiction] the bank is a little more uncertain about your likelihood to pay. Banks don't like uncertainty, and they can deal with that uncertainty in two ways: (1) They can charge you a higher interest rate; OR (2) They can refuse you the loan. Now just because one bank refuses you a loan, doesn't mean all will - but being refused by one bank is probably a good indication that many / most institutions would refuse you, because they all use very similar analytical tools to determine your 'risk level'. If you are refused a loan, you can try again at another institution, or you can wait, save a larger down payment, and build your credit history by faithfully paying your credit card every month, paying your utilities, and making your car and rent payments on time. This will give the banks more comfort that you will have the ability to pay your mortgage every month, and a larger down payment will give them comfort that if the housing market dips, you won't owe more than the house is worth. My parting shot is this: If you are new in your career with no income history, be very careful about buying a property immediately, even if you get approved. A good rule of thumb is to only buy a property when you plan on living there for at least 5 years, or else you are likely to lose money overall, after factoring closing costs and maintenance fees. If you are refused a loan, that's probably a good sign that you aren't financially ready yet, but even if a bank approves you for a loan, you might not be ready yet either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c8dc8cbfd95b961f3ef5a7719eb7907", "text": "My credentials: I used to work on mortgages, about 5 years ago. I wasn't a loan officer (the salesman) or mortgage processor (the grunt who does the real work), but I reviewed their work fairly closely. So I'm not an absolute authority, but I have first-hand knowledge. Contrary to the accepted answer, yes the bank is obligated to offer you a loan - if you meet their qualifications. This may sound odd, and as though it's forcing a bank to give money when it doesn't want to, but there is good reason. Back in the 1950's through 1980's, banks tended to deny loans to African Americans who were able to buy nicer homes because the loan officer didn't quite 'feel' like they were capable of paying off an expensive house, even if they had the exact same history and income as a white person who did get approved. After several rounds of trying to fix this problem, the government finally decreed that the bank must have a set, written criteria by which it will approve or decline loans, and the interest rates provided. It can change that criteria, but those changes must apply to all new customers. Banks are allowed a bit of discretion to approve loans that they may normally decline, but must have a written reason (usually it's due to some relationship with the customer's business (this condition adds a lot of extra rules), or that customer has a massive family and all 11 other siblings have gotten loans from the same loan officer - random rare stuff that can be easily documented if/when the government asks). The bank has no discretion to decline a loan at will - I've seen 98-year-olds sign a 30-year mortgage, and the bank was overjoyed because it showed that they didn't discriminate against the elderly. The customer could be a crackhead, and the bank can't turn them down if their paperwork, credit, and income is good. The most the loan officer could do is process the loan slowly and hope the crackhead gets arrested before the bank spends any more money. The regulations for employees new to the workforce are a bit less wonderful, but the bank will want 30+ days of income history (30 days, NOT 4 weeks) if you have it. BUT, if you are a fresh new employee, they can do the loan using your written and signed job offer as proof of income. However, I discourage you from using this method to buy a house. You are much, much better off renting for a while and learning the local area before you shop for a house. It's too easy to buy a house without knowing the city, then discover that you have a hideously slow drive to work and are in the worst part of town. And, you may not like the company as much, or you may not be a good fit. It's not uncommon to leave a company within a year or two. You don't want a house that anchors you to one place while you need the freedom to explore career options. And consider this: banks love selling mortgages, but they hate holding them. They want to collect that $10,000 closing fee, they couldn't care less about the 4% interest trickling in over 30 years. Once they sign the mortgage, they try to sell it to investors who want to buy high-grade debt within a month. That sale gives them all the money back, so they can use it to sell another mortgage and collect another $10,000. If the bank has its way, it has offloaded your mortgage before you send the first payment to them. As a result, it's a horrible idea to buy a house unless you expect to live there at least 5 or 10 years, because the closing costs are so high.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "070ac502bf02c2917462be84acc46be8", "text": "I've been a mortgage broker for almost 20 years. I get people loans all of the time thru FHA and Conventional (Fannie Mae) with just one year work history; however, as a student, you must submit your school transcripts and your major needs to be in line with your current job. I'm closing a guy next week that has only been in his job for 8 months but he just graduated with his Masters in Biology. He's currently a wild life manager and the underwriter signed off on it easily.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8401508cd262c9959657b24535973b9b", "text": "I’ve been in the mortgage business for nearly 15 years. Your question is sort of multi-faceted and I’m surprised by some of these answers I’ve read! Anyway, I digress. Yes, you can be denied even if you have money for a down payment. One of the BIGGEST factors lenders are now required to take into account when approving mortgages now is a person’s “Ability to Repay.” Whether your traditional mortgages like Conventional, FHA, USDA, or VA loans, or even an “in-house” mortgage from a local bank —either way, the lender MUST be able to verify someone’s ability to repay. Your issue is that you won’t have any verifiable income until May. A couple people have answered correctly in that 1) if you have a firm offer letter that can be verified with the employer, and 2) you can use your education/college to substitute for a two year work history as long as you’re graduating with and working in the same line of work. Some programs require proof of 30 days of pay history once you actually start earning paychecks; some programs will use the offer letter as long as you will start earning paychecks within a certain number of days after the note date (basically when the payments start). Also I’m making the assumption that there is some sort of credit history that can be verified. Most lenders want at least a couple of accounts reporting a history just to show good use of credit and showing that you can manage your finances over a longer period of time. Just about every lender has some sort of minimum FICO score requirement. I hope this helps. If you have questions, just reply in a comment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4dde14078360ebe61ec0b131b96c43aa", "text": "There are loan options for those in your situation. It is very common. I am a licensed loan officer nmls 1301324 and have done many loans just like this. Your schooling is counted as your work history Contrary to popular belief. We want to write loans and guidelines are easing. Banks are a different story and their loan officers aren't licensed. If you talk to a bank you aren't getting an educated loan officer. They also have what are called overlays that make guidelines stricter.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ac5e3eceb0f3f7efed7542521895e212", "text": "I have gotten a letter of credit from my credit union stating the maximum amount I can finance. Of course I don't show the dealer the letter until after we have finalized the deal. I Then return in 3 business days with a cashiers check for the purchase price. In one case since the letter was for an amount greater then the purchase price I was able drive the car off the lot without having to make a deposit. In another case they insisted on a $100 deposit before I drove the car off the lot. I have also had them insist on me applying for their in-house loan, which was cancelled when I returned with the cashiers check. The procedure was similar regardless If I was getting a loan from the credit union, or paying for the car without the use of a loan. The letter didn't say how much was loan, and how much was my money. Unless you know the exact amount, including all taxes and fees,in advance you can't get a check in advance. If you are using a loan the bank/credit Union will want the car title in their name.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8538425a1512cb2ef656089209391114", "text": "Being a guarantor means you have explicitly agreed that you will make the loan payments if the primary borrower doesn't. That means you have given them permission to demand those payments, which means they can force you to sell things if you can't find the money any other way. Essentially, you have promised to buy the loan from the bank if they decide it's a bad loan. Where you would find the money to pay for it is your problem. Obviously, this is not a situation you want to get into if you don't trust that the borrower will do everything in their power to protect you or repay you, or if you aren't willing to make them a gift of the money if they can't or don't, or if you can't afford to lend them the money yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b07c7636d56c874eee129e2b74e5253e", "text": "I recommend you ask this question to a qualified mortgage broker. We just closed on our first house. My wife & I have had several years of stable jobs, good credit scores, and a small side business with 1040 Schedule-C income... and we were surprised by the overwhelming amount of documentation we needed for the loan. For example, we had 3 checks deposited to our bank account for $37.95. We had to provide copies of the checks, deposit slip and a letter explaining the deposit. One reason we might have had so much trouble: the mortgage broker we selected sold our loan to a very picky lender. On the plus side, we obtained a competitive rate with extremely low closing costs on a 30 year fixed mortgage. However, I can't imagine the headaches we would've incurred if one of us were changing jobs to 1099 income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22583fa50c9ff6f21a1e127b4bdeed3b", "text": "Most states do have a cooling-off period where the buyer can rescind the purchase as well as a legally allowed limit to how long the dealer has to secure financing when they buyer has opted for dealer-financing. If the dealer did inform you during the allowed window, they will refund your down payment minus mileage fees at a state set cost per mile that you used the car. If the dealer did not inform you during the allowed window, depending on the state, they may have to refund the entire down payment. In any case, the problem is that the bank does not want to offer you the loan, you can try to negotiate and have the dealer use what leverage they have to coerce the bank, but there is probably no way for you to force the loan through. Alternatively you can seek your own financing from your own bank or credit union, which will likely allow the sale to go through. UPDATE - Colorado laws allow the dealer 10 days to inform you that they cannot obtain financing on the terms agreed upon in the original contract. That contract contained wording related to the mileage fees. You can find that info on page 8 of the linked PDF under the heading D. USAGE FEE AND MILEAGE CHARGE", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1539d63a7428b2820667f161daba9011", "text": "While it is possible to have pre-printed checks with a limit on them, I'd be worried about two things: That limit somehow getting ignored by the banks and the resulting hassle on your part. Anyone unscrupulous could try to talk dad into simply writing more than one check. Dad should give you power of attorney and let you dole out a monthly allowance into his account. Yeah, it's a tough conversation, just like the one about not driving anymore.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b74742b32b99f9bd32cd60cc84d3206f", "text": "\"Often the counter-party has obligations with respect to timelines as well -- if your buying a house, the seller probably is too, and may have a time-sensitive obligation to close on the deal. I'm that scenario, carrying the second mortgage may be enough to make that deal fall through or result in some other negative impact. Note that \"\"pre-approval\"\" means very little, banks can and do pass on deals, even if the buyer has a good payment history. That's especially true when the economy is not so hot -- bankers in 2011 are worried about not losing money... In 2006, they were worried about not making enough!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "042b242265023ff11bf09c68b010334d", "text": "If you can qualify for two mortgages, this is certainly possible. For this you can talk to a banker. However, most people do not qualify for two mortgages so they go a different route. They make offers on a new home with a contingency to sell the existing home. A good Realtor will walk you through this and any possible side effects. Keep in mind that the more contingencies in an offer the less attractive that offer is to sellers. This is how cash buyers can get a better deal (no contingencies and a very fast close). Given the hotness of your market a seller might reject your offer as opposed to first time home buyer that does not need to sell an old home. On the other hand, they may see your contingency as low risk as the market is so hot. This is why you probably need a really good agent. They can frame the contingency in a very positive light.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6564b849fddb495c63f688e149b585d0", "text": "Are there any known laws explicitly allowing or preventing this behavior? It's not the laws, it's what's in the note - the mortgage contract. I read my mortgage contracts very carefully to ensure that there's no prepayment penalty and that extra funds are applied to the principal. However, it doesn't have to be like that, and in older mortgages - many times it's not like that. Banks don't have to allow things that are not explicitly agreed upon in the contract. To the best of my knowledge there's no law requiring banks to allow what your friend wants.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d2c5c75a3a4275cd1e4dd42f690d634", "text": "If you are putting down less than 20% expect to need to pay PMI. When you first applied they should have described you a group of options ranging from minimal to 20% down. The monthly amounts would have varied based on PMI, down payment, and interest rate. The maximum monthly payment for principal, interest, taxes, and insurance will determine the maximum loan you can get. The down payment determines the price of the house above the mortgage amount. During the most recent real estate bubble, lenders created exotic mortgage options to cover buyers who didn't have cash for a down-payment; or not enough income for the principal and interest, or ways to sidestep PMI. Many of these options have disappeared or are harder to get. You need to go back to the bank and get more information on your different options, or find a lender broker who will help you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b80cfd67567b2482cfe5fb29d67f9c5", "text": "It depends on how much equity you have in your home. Scenario 1: Your home is worth $100K, and your current mortgage is for $100K (or more which means you are underwater.) In this case you can't get a 2nd mortgage because: That being said, you can use different portions of equity in your home as collateral for multiple mortgages, as long as none of the equity overlaps, but you may need permission from the primary mortgage bank first, for example: Scenario 2: Your home is worth $100K, and your current mortgage is for $80K meaning you currently have $20K in equity. It is possible to get a 2nd mortgage or home equity line of credit for $20K. As a side note, if your loan agent is telling you to use a different bank, it sounds like she is trying (and willing) to do something shady. If you are in Scenario 1, I'd find a new agent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "750a1ab4a779a1150815ad21426169ae", "text": "\"Wouldn't be advisable, it's not a bank account. However, some plans have emergency \"\"hardship\"\" provisions. Some that I'm familiar with would only be allowable if you are ineligible for a loan. Some of the reasons are purchase of a primary residence, college expenses, funeral costs, or to prevent eviction. Hope this helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40a3ed42a95a261f1ea50c917cd0b435", "text": "Make sure that when you have the loan you still contribute enough to get the company match. For example: An inability to maximize the match might need to be figured into the opportunity cost of the loan. Some companies will suspend your contributions for a specific number of months for a hardship withdraw. Make sure you understand where the money comes from for the loan. Can you count the money that the company matched but you are not vested with, when determining the maximum amount of the loan? If the money is in what is now a closed fund can you replenish the funds back into that fund if use it to fund the loan? Know what the repayment time period is of the loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e511afc8eba41870dd7e88e079f1499a", "text": "The most likely reason for this is that the relocation company wants to have a guaranteed sale so as to get a new mortgage in the new location. Understand that the relocation company generally works for a prospective employer. So they are trying to make the process as painless as possible for the homeowner (who is probably getting hired as a professional, either a manager or someone like an engineer or accountant). If the sale is guaranteed to go through regardless of any problems, then it is easy for them to arrange a new mortgage. In fact, they may bridge the gap by securing the initial financing and making the downpayment, then use the payout from the house you are buying to buy out their position. That puts them on the hook for a bunch of money (a downpayment on a house) while they're waiting on the house you're purchasing to close. This does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with the house. The relocation company would only know about something wrong if the owner had disclosed it. They don't really care about the house they're selling. Their job is to make the transition easy. With a relocation company, it is more likely that they are simply in a hurry and want to avoid a busted purchase. If this sale fails to go through for any reason, they have to start over. That could make the employment change fall through. This is a variation of a no contingencies sale. Sellers like no contingencies sales because they are easier. Buyers dislike them because their protections are weaker. But some buyers will offer them because they get better prices that way. In particular, house flippers will do this frequently so as to get the house for less money than they might otherwise pay. This is better than a pure no contingencies sale, as they are agreeing to the repairs. This is a reasonable excuse to not proceed with the transaction. If this makes you so uncomfortable that you'd rather continue looking, that's fine. However, it also gives you a bit of leverage, as it means that they are motivated to close this transaction quickly. You can consider any of the following: Or you can do some combination of those or something else entirely that makes you fell more secure. If you do decide to move forward with any version of this provision, get a real estate lawyer to draft the agreement. Also, insist on disclosure of any previous failed sales and the reason for the failure before signing the agreement. The lawyer can make that request in such a way as to get a truthful response. And again, in case you missed it when I said this earlier. You can say no and simply refuse to move forward with such a provision. You may not get the house, but you'll save a certain amount of worry. If you do move forward, you should be sure that you are getting a good deal. They're asking for special provisions; they should bear the cost of that. Either your current deal is already good (and it may be) or you should make them adjust until it is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97346439b9bda6cb87eaf6f87a228137", "text": "Keep in mind that lenders will consider the terms of any loans you have when determining your ability to pay back the mortgage. They'll want to see paperwork, or if you claim it is a gift they will require a letter to that effect from your relative. Obviously, this could effect your ability to qualify for a loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b65061af07fa3aa550a3bee5c4c8e631", "text": "Is she correct in that you generally can't even apply until the cash transaction is complete? Probably. How can you commit to mortgage something you do not own? Makes sense for them to wait not even until the transaction is complete - but until the transaction is recorded. Is 45 days reasonable to complete the financing? Yes.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2aa08fe94f2f64b3912327a53b4724cb	GnuCash: expense tracking/amounts left under limits	[ { "docid": "0f1bca174e10f914463e5c7ddcf1433e", "text": "\"Yes. The simplest option to track your spending over time is to familiarize yourself with the \"\"Reports\"\" menu on the toolbar. Take a look specifically at the \"\"Reports > Income/Expense > Income Statement\"\" report, which will sum up your income and spending over a time frame (defaults to the current year). In each report that you run, there is an \"\"Options\"\" button at the top of the screen. Open that and look on the \"\"General\"\" tab, you'll be able to set the time frame that the report displays (if you wanted to set it for the 2 week block since your last paycheck, for example). Other features you're going to want to familiarize yourself with are the Expense charts & statements, the \"\"Cash Flow\"\" report, and the \"\"Budgeting\"\" interface (which is relatively new), although there is a bit of a learning curve to using this last feature. Most of the good ideas when it comes to tracking your spending are independent of the software you're using, but can be augmented with a good financial tracking program. For example, in our household we have multiple credit cards which we pay in full every month. We selected our cards on specific benefits that they provide, such as one card which has a rotating category for cash back at certain business types. We keep that card set on restaurants and put all of our \"\"eating out\"\" expenses on that card. We have other cards for groceries, gas, etc. This makes it easy to see how much we've spent in a given category, and correlates well with the account structure in gnucash.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "76c035fbbf0e576a6f2bd374cab35523", "text": "\"The answer was provided to me at the Gnucash chat by \"\"warlord\"\". The procedure is as follows: After doing this you will have:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a89ab2d6bd9760664b9f5741aabdd05f", "text": "I know nothing about this, but found this link which suggests for H&R Block specifically: I kept searching and I found the section. It's at the end in the Credits section under 'other backup withholding'. Hopefully this helps someone else in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32cef36b284aa6cef14527c27cb8bca0", "text": "\"The standard double-entry approach would just be to create a Liability account for the loan, and then make a transfer from that account to your Asset (Savings) account when the loan proceeds are distributed to you. After that point, the loan doesn't \"\"belong\"\" to your Savings account in any way. Each account and transaction is tracked separately. So, you might for instance pay that loan back with a transfer from your Checking account, even though the initial disbursement arrived into your Savings account. In order to see how much of a loan you have remaining, you need to look at the loan's Liability account to see what transactions occurred in it and what its remaining balance is. It sounds like what you're really trying to accomplish is the idea of \"\"earmarking\"\" or \"\"putting into an envelope\"\" certain assets for certain purposes. This kind of budgeting isn't really something that Gnucash excels at. It does have some budget features, but there's more about being able to see how actual expenses are to expected expenses for a reporting period, not about being able to ask \"\"How much 'discretionary' assets do I have left before I start hitting my 'emergency fund'\"\". The closest you get is splitting up your asset accounts into subaccounts as you suggest, in which case you can \"\"allocate\"\" funds for your specific purposes and make transfers between them as needed. That can work well enough depending on your exact goals, though it can sometimes make it a little trickier to reconcile with your actual bank statements. But there's not really an accounting reason to associate the \"\"emergency fund\"\" portion of your assets with the remaining balance of your loan; though there's nothing stopping you from doing so if that's what you're trying to do. Accounting answers questions like \"\"How much have I spent on X in the past?\"\" and \"\"How much do I own right now?\"\". If you want to ask \"\"How much am I allowed to spend on X right now?\"\" or \"\"Am I likely to run out of money soon?\"\", you may want a budgeting tool rather than an accounting tool.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2001e382087977d58faadeb8485548a", "text": "I'm not familiar with Gnucash, but I can discuss double-entry bookkeeping in general. I think the typical solution to something like this is to create an Asset account for what this other person owes you. This represents the money that he owes you. It's an Accounts Receivable. Method 1: Do you have/need separate accounts for each company that you are paying for this person? Do you need to record where the money is going? If not, then all you need is: When you pay a bill, you credit (subtract from) Checking and debit (add to) Friend Account. When he pays you, you credit (subtract from) Friend Account and debit (add to) Checking. That is, when you pay a bill for your friend you are turning one asset, cash, into a different kind of asset, receivable. When he pays you, you are doing the reverse. There's no need to create a new account each time you pay a bill. Just keep a rolling balance on this My Friend account. It's like a credit card: you don't get a new card each time you make a purchase, you just add to the balance. When you make a payment, you subtract from the balance. Method 2: If you need to record where the money is going, then you'd have to create accounts for each of the companies that you pay bills to. These would be Expense accounts. Then you'd need to create two accounts for your friend: An Asset account for the money he owes you, and an Income account for the stream of money coming in. So when you pay a bill, you'd credit Checking, debit My Friend Owes Me, credit the company expense account, and debit the Money from My Friend income account. When he repays you, you'd credit My Friend Owes Me and debit Checking. You don't change the income or expense accounts. Method 3: You could enter bills when they're received as a liability and then eliminate the liability when you pay them. This is probably more work than you want to go to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46bc1213fb52a6c9ecdc1047f6d59daa", "text": "For double entry bookkeeping, personal or small business, GnuCash is very good. Exists for Mac Os.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aacdae478cdb8a98b2b69eed4440805e", "text": "In general you need to ask yourself how serious you are about tracking your finances. If your GNUCash 'cleared' balance doesn't match your statement, it represents an error on either your part or much less likely the banks part. Tracking down this error might be a real pain, but you will also likely learn from it. So to answer your question - find the entry or entries that don't match and fix them. That said, sometimes indeed this can be very tedious, time consuming and frustrating, especially if it is for a relatively small dollar amount. Time too is money, so in these cases, the 'Expense:Adjustment' might be a reasonable approach.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6fa632a4fe912a3d78b7a6592e82079", "text": "\"I wrote a little program one time to try to do this. I think I wrote it in Python or something. The idea was to have a list of \"\"projected expenses\"\" where each one would have things like the amount, the date of the next transaction, the frequency of the transaction, and so on. The program would then simulate time, determining when the next transaction would be, updating balances, and so on. You can actually do a very similar thing with a spreadsheet where you basically have a list of expenses that you manually paste in for each month in advance. Simply keep a running balance of each row, and make sure you don't forget any transactions that should be happening. This works great for fixed expenses, or expenses that you know how much they are going to be for the next month. If you don't know, you can estimate, for instance you can make an educated guess at how much your electric bill will be the next month (if you haven't gotten the bill yet) and you can estimate how much you will spend on fuel based on reviewing previous months and some idea of whether your usage will differ in the next month. For variable expenses I would always err on the side of a larger amount than I expected to spend. It isn't going to be possible to budget to the exact penny unless you lead a very simple life, but the extra you allocate is important to cushion unexpected and unavoidable overruns. Once you have this done for expenses against your bank account, you can see what your \"\"low water mark\"\" is for the month, or whatever time period you project out to. If this is above your minimum, then you can see how much you can safely allocate to, e.g. paying off debt. Throwing a credit card into the mix can make things a bit more predictable in the current month, especially for unpredictable amounts, but it is a bit more complicated as now you have a second account that you have to track that has to get deducted from your first account when it becomes due in the following month. I am assuming a typical card where you have something like a 25 day grace period to pay without interest along with up to 30 days after the expense before the grace period starts, depending on the relationship between your cut-off date and when the actual expense occurs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5ac2c4ff3c5d1c545838bec51ac3bb8", "text": "\"Other responses have focused on getting you software to use, but I'd like to attempt your literal question: how are such transactions managed in systems that handle them? I will answer for \"\"double entry\"\" bookkeeping software such as Quicken or GnuCash (my choice). (Disclaimer: I Am Not An Accountant and accountants will probably find error in my terminology.) Your credit card is a liability to you, and is tracked using a liability account (as opposed to an asset account, such as your bank accounts or cash in your pocket). A liability account is just like an asset except that it is subtracted from rather than added to your total assets (or, from another perspective, its balance is normally negative; the mathematics works out identically). When you make a purchase using your credit card, the transaction you record transfers money from the liability account (increasing the liability) to the expense account for your classification of the expense. When you make a payment on your credit card, the transaction you record transfers money from your checking account (for example) to the credit card account, reducing the liability. Whatever software you choose for tracking your money, I strongly recommend choosing something that is sufficiently powerful to handle representing this as I have described (transfers between accounts as the normal mode of operation, not simply lone increases/decreases of asset accounts).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "018b63959ce19a9231003a0ca1de8522", "text": "I have only found solution for UK residents so far, see the article on This Is Money: Cheapest index-tracking funds: Trackers with the lowest charges - and the best ways to invest in them", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bee16dbc6399156761aef1df1bf3748", "text": "Limit books are managed by exchanges. If an order is not immediately filled, it is sent to the book. From there, orders are generally executed on price-time-priority. The one major exception is the precedence hide-not-slide orders have over earlier placed visible slidden limit orders since unslidden orders are treated like a modification/cancellation. To an exchange, a modification is the same as a cancellation since it charges no fees for placing or canceling orders, only for trades. The timestamp is reset, and price-time-priority is applied in the same way, so if a modified order isn't immediately filled, it is sent back to the book to be filled in order of price-time-priority.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "143191be6ef8c5e7078cf3442e298358", "text": "\"Gnucash is much more designed for accounting than for budgeting. While it does have some simple budgeting features, they're largely based around tracking how much has been spent in the Expense categories/accounts, and seeing how close one is to a limit that's been set. Because the point of Gnucash is accounting, there's not a way to track an expense in two expense categories simultaneously. (You can split a transaction across multiple categories, to have a grocery store purchase of $150 be split across $100 Food and $50 Phone Minutes or whatever. But not have a $150 purchase be tracked as $150 Food and $150 Household expenses, because that's not how double-entry accounting works.) The closest way to do what I think you're looking for is to take advantage of the hierarchical account structure, and repeat subcategories as needed. For example: This would allow you to see Household expenses vs. Vacation expenses, and still see what it got spent on. Reporting on all \"\"Food\"\" purchases, if you want to do so, is slightly more tricky as you'd need to select all those \"\"Food\"\" categories separately in your report, but it's possible. You speak about wanting to \"\"track\"\" expenses multiple ways, so I think that this would allow you to record data sufficient to \"\"track\"\" it. But the point of tracking any data is to be able to report on it in some fashion, so if you have more specific reporting requirements, you might want to ask about that as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b274dcbeca8aaf4a0d475b7e2101809b", "text": "Mint has worked fairly well for tracking budgets and expenses, but I use GnuCash to plug in the holes. It offers MSFT$ like registers; the ability to track cash expenses, assets, and liabilities; and the option to track individual investment transactions. I also use GnuCash reports for my taxes since it gives a clearer picture of my finances than Mint does.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a8aa234932951e462e9c75416d5fab0", "text": "If you want to keep any consistent standard, you need to knuckle down and make those transaction entries. Honestly, this is a lot faster doing in bulk than doing day-by-day. But change how you account so it isn't annoying. I minimize my bookable transactions. For instance I deposit all income whole (for tracking) but stop tracking when the money is converted to cash or gift card money - I log adding $50 to a McDonalds gift card, but not the individual meals. I only use cash for the myriad small things I do not want to track - fast food, parking meters, etc. Anything big or that I want to track goes on a credit card. Then it's easy to reconcile credit cards to accounting system. (Cathy) Ryan's Law: if it wasn't written down, it didn't happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94ddf1032cb45bb5c777b866ae873592", "text": "\"I found your post while searching for this same exact problem. Found the answer on a different forum about a different topic, but what you want is a Cash Flow report. Go to Reports>Income & Expenses>Cash Flow - then in Options, select the asset accounts you'd like to run the report for (\"\"Calle's Checking\"\" or whatever) and the time period. It will show you a list of all the accounts (expense and others) with transactions effecting that asset. You can probably refine this further to show only expenses, but I found it useful to have all of it listed. Not the prettiest report, but it'll get your there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e2f45c23e571baea4581cfc708711d9", "text": "\"For any accounts where you have a wish to keep track of dividends, gains and losses, etc., you will have to set up a an account to hold the separately listed securities. It looks like you already know how to do this. Here the trading accounts will help you, especially if you have Finance:Quote set up (to pull security prices from the internet). For the actively-managed accounts, you can just create each managed account and NOT fill it with the separate securities. You can record the changes in that account in summary each month/year as you prefer. So, you might set up your chart of accounts to include these assets: And this income: The actively-managed accounts will each get set up as Type \"\"Stock.\"\" You will create one fake security for each account, which will get your unrealized gains/losses on active accounts showing up in your trading accounts. The fake securities will NOT be pulling prices from the internet. Go to Tools -> Securities Editor -> Add and type in a name such as \"\"Merrill Lynch Brokerage,\"\" a symbol such as \"\"ML1,\"\" and in the \"\"Type\"\" field input something like \"\"Actively Managed.\"\" In your self-managed accounts, you will record dividends and sales as they occur, and your securities will be set to get quotes online. You can follow the general GnuCash guides for this. In your too-many-transactions actively traded accounts, maybe once a month you will gather up your statements and enter the activity in summary to tie the changes in cost basis. I would suggest making each fake \"\"share\"\" equal $1, so if you have a $505 dividend, you buy 505 \"\"shares\"\" with it. So, you might have these transactions for your brokerage account with Merrill Lynch (for example): When you have finished making your period-end summary entries for all the actively-managed accounts, double-check that the share balances of your actively-managed accounts match the cost basis amounts on your statements. Remember that each fake \"\"share\"\" is worth $1 when you enter it. Once the cost basis is tied, you can go into the price editor (Tools -> Price Editor) and enter a new \"\"price\"\" as of the period-end date for each actively-managed account. The price will be \"\"Value of Active Acct at Period-End/Cost of Active Acct at Period-End.\"\" So, if your account was worth $1908 but had a cost basis of $505 on Jan. 31, you would type \"\"1908/505\"\" in the price field and Jan. 31, 2017 in the date field. When you run your reports, you will want to choose the price source as \"\"Nearest in Time\"\" so that GnuCash grabs the correct quotes. This should make your actively-managed accounts have the correct activity in summary in your GnuCash income accounts and let them work well with the Trading Accounts feature.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c6582385fda393114d3306dc1bf6e3b1	Why can't the government simply payoff everyone's mortgage to resolve the housing crisis?	[ { "docid": "9d9b714554609920f47430c4bc01b60a", "text": "Could it be done? Yes, it could, subject to local law. A variant of such an approach has been suggested for those countries experiencing collapse of demand. One might consider whether whether it applied to secured loans (such as mortgages), unsecured loans, or both; whether it would be capped at a certain absolute (say £100k) or proportional (first 50%) of each mortgage; whether it would cover first homes only, or all homes; and so on. These details would radically change the feasibility and consequences of any such intervention. See the related question: https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/146/104 Such a policy of debt cancellation would have several consequences beyond initial stimulation of demand, that would need additional policies to deal with them. Inflation The resultant surge in demand would, in the absence of any other intervention, result in a massive surge in inflation. There are some interesting questions about whether this burst of inflation would be a one-off, or not. One could make an argument that as housing has become much more affordable (at least for home-owners), it would increase the downward pressure on wages, which would be in itself counter-inflationary in the medium-long term. Nevertheless, it would be injecting much more money into the economy than has been seen in QE to date, so the risks would be of extraordinarily high inflation, which might or might not get entrenched. In order to manage the short-term risk, and long-term inflation expectations, it might be necessary to incorporate a lot of tightening, either fiscal (higher taxes and/or lower public spending), or monetary: (higher interest rates, unwinding QE, new requirements for higher core capital for banks) Moral hazard There are risks of moral hazard for individuals: however, as a society, we were prepared to accept the moral hazard for financial institutions and their staff, so that may or may not be an issue: it is likely to be a question of long-term expectations. If the expectation is that this is at most a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, then the consequential risk from moral hazard ought to be lower. Excess profits to lenders Lenders will typically work on the basis of a certain proportion of defaults, so paying off all loans effectively gives them an artificial boost to their profits. Worsening balance of payments There is to a degree a prisoners' dilemma facing nations here. Pressing the reset-button on personal debt across many of the countries experiencing demand-collapse would benefit all of them. However, if just one such country were to do it alone, they alone would increase domestic demand, resulting in a large increase in imports, but no significant increase in exports.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e849b3d211a31435403e20341ec5b7ed", "text": "\"Just looking at the practicality: Because the total value of outstanding mortgages in the US is about $10 trillion, and the government can't afford it without printing enough money to cause hyperinflation. The cost of saving the banks was actually much less than the \"\"hundreds of billions of dollars\"\" that is quoted, because most of it was loans that have been or will be repaid, not cash payments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e482c7b1177a5e9b7900478b922445d3", "text": "\"Interestingly, ancient Judaism and Christianity held a Jubilee year every 50 years in which all debts were forgive, slaves were freed, etc. \"\"The land must not be sold permanently, for the land belongs to me. You are only foreigners, my tenant farmers.\"\" -Leviticus 25:23 Jubilee would more resemble \"\"the government declares all mortgages and credit card debts void\"\" with FDIC caping the payouts when banks fell into receivership, not simply \"\"the government pays off all mortgages\"\". Yet, it still demonstrates that primitive societies employed tools similar to what you describe. There is surely all manor of interesting analysis of the economic impacts of Jubilee by Jewish religious historians. You might even find arguments that communism was invented because Western Judeo-Christian societies abandoned Jubilee. As an aside, I'm surprised that nobody here directly discussed the velocity of money. If you wipe out a mortgage, you might convert a spender into a saver, especially during a recession, meaning you've injected slow money. Conversely, anyone too poor for a mortgage probably spends all their money, meaning giving them a job injects faster money. In addition, it's much cheaper to hire tons of poor people to do useful things, like repairing bridges.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b13ce3e4a1c377d4ab7c7c98c30d3ebf", "text": "Government purchases of mortgages simply transfers the debt burden from households to the sovereign. Taxes pay sovereign debt (65% of whom are homeowners anyway). No debt has been restructured -- it's now paid via taxes instead of monthly mortgage payments -- and those paying include persons who responsibly avoided housing speculation. The U.S. has a debt-to-GDP ratio just shy of the critical point of 90%. Purchasing $10 trillion in mortgage debt (about a year of GDP) would put the U.S. on an inexorable path towards insolvency and inflation. There are all sorts of other risks (loss of a risk-free asset, moral hazard, nationalization of the housing industry, etc.) but this should make the point clear that it's not a good idea. There are only three ways to reduce debt: 1) default, 2) restructure, or 3) lower the real debt burden by de-valuing currency in which the debt is denominated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea2c1074eaffb004f46e2eeceee96ef5", "text": "I think Energy and Mike point out the some serious issues but the prospects for the futures also need to be considered. If the banks no longer have those loans then they need to rebuild their income base that is wiped out by the payoff of their loans. They would be incentivised to make a large number of loans so that they could quickly reestablish their base so they can maintain profitability. This is likely to lead to more poor lending practices that lead to this location in the first place. The high earning heavily leveraged would benefit far more from this than the poor. A function of income is that as it increases the ability to leverage increases in a non lineal fashion. So single person making 250k a year(the benchmark set by the current administration) with a 2 million dollar mortgage(probably underwater currently) on a home would benefit much more than a family of 4 making 50k a year with a 100k mortgage. Assuming that government does pay off all mortages now people can sell of their now fully paid homes for less than their value, as its basically free money, leverage that money to move into a better home, so home values actually crash, in some areas as people sell them off cheap, people try to gamble on cheap houses(like we just saw), etc. It takes a market that is on the verge of recovery and stabilization and shakes it up. How long before it stabilizes again would be a matter of debate but I would not expect to see it in less than a decade. Business and the Economy thrives on stability and retreats from instability. So while this would appear to be an injection to the economy the chaos it creates would likely actually severely retard future economic growth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1b03fc22452d5e27707aa69e1af778a", "text": "\"TARP was ~$475 billion of loans to institutions. Loans that are to be paid back, with interest (albeit very low interest). A significant percentage of the TARP loans have been (or will be) paid back. So, the final price tag of the TARP was only a few $billion (pretty low considering the scale of the program). There is ~$10 trillion in mortgage debt outstanding. That's a much higher price tag than TARP. Secondly, paying off the mortgages = no repayment to the government as there was with TARP. The initial price tag of your plan would be ~$10 trillion, instead of a few $billion. Furthermore how does a government with >$15 trillion in debt already come up with an extra ~$10 trillion to pay off people's mortgages? Should the government go deeper into debt? Print more money and trigger inflation? (Note: Some people like to talk about a \"\"secret bailout\"\" by the Fed, implying that the true cost of TARP was much higher than claimed by the government. The \"\"secret bailout\"\" was a series of short-term low/no interest loans to banks. Because they were loans, which were paid back, my point still stands.) Some other issues to consider: Remember that the principal balance of your mortgage is only a small portion of your payments to the bank. Over 30 years, you pay a lot of $$$ in interest to the bank (that's how banks make a profit). Banks are expecting that revenue, and it is factored into their financial projections. If those revenue streams suddenly disappeared, I expect it would majorly screw the up the financial industry. Many people bought houses during the real estate boom, when housing prices were inflated far beyond the \"\"real\"\" value of the house. Is it right to overpay for these houses? This rewards the banks for accepting the inflated value during the appraisal process. (Loan modification forces banks to accept the \"\"real\"\" value of the house.) The financial crisis was triggered by people buying houses they could not afford. Should they be rewarded with a free house for making poor financial decisions?\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "318b176230b8586dd9fc2cab38336566", "text": "tl;dr: when everything is going great, it's not really a problem. It's when things change that it's a problem. Finally, home loans are extended over extremely long periods (i.e. 15 or 30 years), making any fluctuations in their value short-lived - even less reason to be obsessed over their current value relative to the loan. Your post is based on the assumption that you never move. In that case, you are correct - being underwater on a mortgage is not a problem. The market value of your house matters little, except if you sell it or it gets reassessed. The primary problem arises if you want to sell. There are a variety of reasons you might be required to move: In all of these scenarios it is a major problem if you cannot sell. Your options generally are: In the first option, you will destroy your credit. This may or may not be a problem. The second is a major inconvenience. The third is ideal, but often people in this situation have money related problems. Student loans can deferred if needed. Mortgages cannot. A car is more likely to be a lower payment as well as a lower amount underwater. Generally, the problem comes when people buy a mortgage assuming certain things - whether that's appreciation, income stability/growth, etc. When these change they run into these problems and that is exactly a moment where being underwater is a problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c41ef51067ef9347fe25a6bcd81ebdf3", "text": "\"Put aside the politics? That's laughable for an article that is nothing BUT politics. For starters the artificially false conflation of everyone as if their behavior were homogeneous, when in reality it is a full spectrum (there are many people with not only ZERO debt, but substantial assets, including very productive assets). Ergo the argument that there is some egalitarian \"\"solution\"\" to this by treating everyone the same way... is in fact a POLITICAL assumption (and a very biased one at that).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51b61510b05690018847d6b23c1d1012", "text": "\"I refuse to vote for Mitt Romney but I don't see what's wrong with his position in this instance. Homes are way too expensive currently and helping people with underwater mortgages would be akin to propping up unsustainable home prices. The only way to fix the housing market it so value homes at a value that people are willing or able to pay. Given the wage deflation going on in the USA coupled with a good portion of an entire generation of new home buyers saddle with a mortgage sized student loan debts, it's ridiculous to think current home prices represent the \"\"bottom\"\" of the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d35a275785ad334b43d00e02d8ea4291", "text": "\"Just like foreclosing is less than optimal for the banks, a tax sale has drawbacks for the county. At a minimum, there the manpower needed to process the foreclosure and sale, and in many cases the value for which the property can be sold is probably less than the taxes due. The problem is this flies in the face of the \"\"personal responsibility\"\" talking point that many bankers have been spreading since the beginning of the financial crisis. It's a moral failing for a homeowner to walk away from an upside-down mortgage, but when the bank does the same thing for a tax bill it's a simple business decision.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45b83b7db238444d8aad9d45593540a6", "text": "I believe the reason is because society and the economy is set up a certain way, and re-enforced by the government. Your options are: So, people usually go with the most attractive of their limited options, getting a mortgage. If you want to dig deeper, do some research as to why housing is expensive. Some things to consider: you need the government's permission to build houses, thus limiting the competition in the home building market, the housing bubble, artificially setting house prices, etc.) To summarize: people need mortgages because houses are expensive, and houses are expensive for many reasons, big ones having to do with the government.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caef27858c67e7b5f3c23fb8e269812a", "text": "\"It's a problem from hell because all solutions have drawbacks/unintended consequences and because they are all pretty complex to implement in practice. Breaking up the big banks so that no bank is enough to bring down the economy with it is the strongest move, but is riddled with problems when you start looking at it practically. How do you determine the \"\"maximum size\"\" a bank should have? Should it be based on assets? Systemic importance (i.e. interconnectedness with other banks)? How do you enforce it? Banks will find ways to offload assets, etc. into special purpose corporations to get around the laws somehow. How do you compensate for the fact that size does help financial efficiency in some ways? Imposing higher capital requirements is the next solution. But that too is not so easy to implement with full success in practice. What should be classified as a low-risk asset? How much capital do you require against a CDO vs a Mexican government bond? How often do you need to revise these standards? At what point does the cost of higher capital requirements start to strangle lending and financial flows? The weaker maneuvers are things like constant government-imposed stress tests, orderly resolution mechanisms, higher standards for internal risk management practices, etc. but those may not be adequate and also have their implementation problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e59ad8c7c5de49cc6ae7a7f7dbbf3db6", "text": "I agree. Money has been funnelled to the top and debt on the those at the bottom for so long people just can't afford to buy a house. Student loans are as expensive as a house. Who can afford two payments like that?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76d142e5fb17aaf1ea6bbf10412bf8fd", "text": "Preparations for inflation that is not going to happen anytime soon is preventing much needed currency from being injected into the system. The deflationary pressures are so strong that less and less currency is being circulated, as people fear for the future. They save more and spend less, because their neighbor's out of work, and they might be next (if they are lucky enough to still have a job). That's not to mention that huge mortgage that they bought into, and are now massively underwater with. With that, they are constantly removing chunks of currency from circulation. When everyone is taking chunks out, the demand for currency rises, and demand for goods and services dies, creating an ever deepening hole. So yes, I think the government should be making major purchases, damn the deficit. Fiber to everyone's home, absolutely massive funding of clean energy research and projects, combat infrastructure decay, etc etc. Labor and resources are cheap right now, and leaving all these people with stagnating skill sets by the wayside with no options creates an exponential decrease in productivity. We have the methods to control inflation when and if it rears it head.. high taxation and high interest rates. Let's burn that bridge when we get there. The U.S. budget does not work like a household, as alluring as this analogy is. There is no paying back the deficit, and there will never be a problem paying the interest on a a currency we can make more of at any point. The real limitation here is inflation, and we have none.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64b06d542cb789cc6df9422c049c888d", "text": "All this may be true but rampant fraud was not at the core of the housing crisis. Middle managers fired because Human Resources could do middle manager work on management software for low wages -- that is the core of the housing crisis. Fired middle managers who were paying their home loans walked away from their homes because they no longer were able to get a high paying job to pay for those homes. The middle class of lower populated Canada is greater than the middle class in the U.S. today. As a former manager of hundreds of home loan officers, I should know.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87fa4388d86ef6ac67a14c7af86ab51a", "text": "And so what was the logical alternative? How does Hank Paulson: 1. Get $150-300 billion dollars into the hands of individual taxpayers so that they don't default on their home mortgages and wipe out the banking system? 2. Make sure the $150-300 B is going to individuals who actually need the capital, weren't bad actors in taking on too much debt and causing everyone else significant harm by engaging in risky borrowing? 3. Sufficiently protect the $150-300 B in loans so that the US Gov't can get paid back and not have it be some massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars? And all this had to be done within a matter of days. Ontop of which, why aren't you railing against the irresponsible automakers who didn't pay back their TARP loans and instead were forgiven, while the banks paid back their loans in full with interest and a profit to the US Taxpayer? The automakers and the unions basically got free money (after Obama came into office and under his direction) on the back of the taxpayer. Isn't that crony capitalism when unions who are Democratic sympathizing voters get loans that are ultimately forgiven by the federal government? The whining you make about private entities like Berkshire, who did nothing to create the crisis and merely took advantage of it, with little to no help from the federal government is remarkable. It's like straight out of a socialist playbook.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9331a3c65771f1e4731b192eb5ed521", "text": "Pay the the smallest balance first. The sooner you pay that off, the sooner you can pay more on the mortgage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53205f3ae9cc5c0fa3b952d110994482", "text": "\"I think a big part of the issue is ignorance. For instance, the US govt cannot default on its loans, yet you keep hearing people speak as if it could. The US govt also does not have to borrow to pay for anything, it creates its own money whenever it wants. These 2 facts often evade many people, and they feel the US govt should act like a household, business, or a state govt. This disconnect leads to a lot of confusion, and things like \"\"fiscal crisis\"\". Just remember Rahm Emanuel - don't let a crisis go to waste. Disclaimer: this is not to say the US should create money whenever it wants without thought. However, the simple fact is it can. For those interested in more, check out Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Its economic study in a world not based on gold standard, or convertible currency (fiat currency).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a4cad748806759ebd93c5e6f88334d1", "text": "No. Bank of America helped out during the financial crisis by buying Merrill Lynch (I am not suggesting they did this for altruistic reasons, just trying to describe the position they were in despite already purchasing Countrywide). They were forced to accept TARP but they paid it all back by the end of 2009. If the IRS fucked up their math like BofA is suggesting then they deserve to be compensated. Edit: Countrywide is one word.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52feda2bfa5b003fa24d3ee131ed0895", "text": "Because people are going deeper into debt and filing for bankruptcy more often, there is more risk on behalf of the credit company. Therefore, they limit their risk by lower limits and increasing interest. For every person that goes bankrupt, there might be 10 that pay that new higher interest rate, thereby netting a profit even though they lost out completely on the one customer. The recent legislation limited how and under what circumstance rate are adjusted and raised, but not forbidden. As for the fact that these banks took tax money under the idea (we all thought) I see two points of view. We never should have had the credit we did, so they are correcting and you (like me and millions of others) are suffering for their prior mistakes. It is an honest attempt to correct the system for long term stability even if we suffer in the short term. We gave them tax money, they need to not screw us over. In response to the still frozen credit markets I would suggest penalty taxes to companies that do not lend. Penalties to companies that do not modify mortgages. The second you take government money is the last second a you are entitled to a profit of anything. Furthermore, we the people bought you and we the people get to decide your salary. The bottom line is there is truth in both statements. Things are totally screwed up right now because we ALL made mistakes in the past trying to get a bigger profit or own a bigger house. There are those among us who didn't make a mistake, and those among us who made nothing but mistakes. As a society, we have to pay the piper either way. The best thing you can do now is pay down your debts, live simply and spend your money wisely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4af29a241248699704bf23cf1c31c9ea", "text": "The core competency of banks is to lend money from depositors and re-lend that money to borrowers. They do not have the expertise to develop real estate. They have trouble evening managing foreclosed real estate, such that they have to sell them at a discount.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bb3b6403cd2ddb30ae431061d310ad11	What are my options for this high interest student loan?	[ { "docid": "d2cfeada7a458040c3b683316ec66c21", "text": "\"There is no magic formula to this, quite simply: earn, cut expenses, and pay. It sounds like you can use a little bit of help in the earning area. While it sounds like you are career focused (which is great) what else can you do to earn? Can you start a low cost of entry side business? Examples would include tutoring, consulting, or even baby sitting. Can you work a part time job that is outside of your career field (waiter, gas station, etc...)? One thing that will help greatly is a written budget each and every month. Have a plan on where to spend your money. Then as you pay off a loan throw that money at the next one. No matter if you use the smallest loan first or highest interest rate first method if you do that your debt payments will \"\"snowball\"\", and you will gain momentum. I'd encourage you to keep good records and do projections. Keeping good records will give you hope when you begin to feel discouraged (it happens to just about everyone). Doing projections will give you goals to meet and then exceed. The wife and I had a lot of success using the cash envelope system and found that we almost always had money left over at the end of the pay cycle. For us that money went to pay off more debt. Do you contribute to a 401K? I'd cut that to at least the match, and if you want to get crazy cut it to zero. The main thing to know is that you can do it. I'd encourage you to pay off all your loans not just the high interests ones.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "148f0f976110c67e4db7052db46b5637", "text": "\"Without all the details it's hard to tell what options you may have, but none of them are good. When you cosign you are saying that, you believe the primary signer will make good on the loan, but that if he doesn't you will. You are 100% responsible for this debt. As such, there are some actions you can take. First, really try to stress to your friend, that they need to get you outta this loan. Urge them to re-finance with out you if they can. Next look for \"\"better\"\" ways of defaulting on the loan and take them. Depending on what the loan is for you could deed-in-lue or short sale. You may just have to admit default. If you work with the bank, and try not to drag out the process, you will likely end up in a better place down the line. Also of importance is ownership. If you pay the loan, do you get ownership of the thing the loan was secured against? Usually not, but working with an attorney and the bank, maybe. For example, if it's a car, can the \"\"friend\"\" sign over the car to you, then you sell it, and reduce your debt. Basically as a cosigner, you have some rights, but you have all the responsibilities. You need to talk to an attorney and possibly the bank, and see what your options are. At this point, if you think the friend is not that much of a friend anymore, it's time to make sure that any conversation you have with them is recorded in email, or on paper.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4fe26e16c35821b744bb322c63f1807", "text": "\"The interest rate is determined by your 401(k) provider and your plan document. Of course you may be able to influence this, depending on your relationship with the provider. I'm very certain that prime+1% is not the only rate that is possible. However, your provider is constrained by IRC 4975(d), which states that the loan must be made \"\"at a reasonable rate of interest.\"\" The definition of \"\"reasonable rate of interest\"\" would probably need to go to court and I do not know if it has. The IRS probably has internal guidelines that determine who gets thrown to the dogs but they would not make those public because it takes away their discretion. Because of the threat of getting pounded by the IRS, I think you will have a hard time getting a provider to allow super high or super low interest rate loans. Note: I am not a lawyer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fce7de4477c0acff16098e74f961250", "text": "If you have (other) high interest debt, say over 8%, pay it back first. Else, you are likely best off paying this loan back and getting the money working for you long term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e469fecddb9bac73a2d315a66af0ca53", "text": "\"There will be many who will judge your proposal on the idea that subsidized loans should be available to those who need them, and should not be used by others who are simply trying to profit from them. Each school has a pool of money available to offer for subsidized and unsubsidized loans. If they are giving you a subsidized loan, they cannot allocate it to someone else who needs it. Once you weigh the investment risks, I agree that it is analogous to investing rather than repaying your mortgage quickly. If you understand the risks, there's no reason why you shouldn't consider other options about what to do with the money. I am more risk averse, so I happen to prefer paying down the mortgage quickly after all other investment/savings goals have been met. Where you fit on that continuum will answer the question of whether or not it is a \"\"bad idea\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4dde14078360ebe61ec0b131b96c43aa", "text": "There are loan options for those in your situation. It is very common. I am a licensed loan officer nmls 1301324 and have done many loans just like this. Your schooling is counted as your work history Contrary to popular belief. We want to write loans and guidelines are easing. Banks are a different story and their loan officers aren't licensed. If you talk to a bank you aren't getting an educated loan officer. They also have what are called overlays that make guidelines stricter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29b6e8b978e35dbb47d436dd1d9cd0c4", "text": "Pay off the Highest interest loan rate first. You must be doing something funky with how long your terms are... If you give a bit more info about your loan's such as the term and how much extra you have right now to spend it could be explained in detail why that would be the better choice using your numbers. You have to make sure when you are analyzing your different loan options that you make sure you are comparing apples to apples. IE make sure that you are either comparing the present value, future value or amortization payments... EDIT: using some of your numbers lets say you have 5000 dollars in your pocket you have 3 options. excel makes these calculations easier... Do nothing: in 80 months your Student Loan will be payed in full and you will have 54676.08 owing on your mortgage and 5000 in your pocket(assuming no bank interest) for mortgage: Pay off Student loan and allocate Student loans amortization to Mortgage: in 80 months you will have $47,910.65 owing on mortgage and student loan will be paid in full For mortgage: Pay 5000 on Mortgage: in 80 months student loan will be paid in full and you will have $48,204.92 owing on mortgage For mortgage:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e40f63a8f34cb766ba38ea020b09b34", "text": "They were kind and let you extend the repayment time on the loan. But that does mean additional interest accumulated during that additional time. You agreed to this; you can't change the contract now. What you can do is find the money to pay off the loan faster, to reduce the total amount of interest you'll be charged.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ab7a895569eedf19577c89144cf4853", "text": "\"I think you're right that from a pure \"\"expected future value\"\" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "798cff6a3a52fef325e5808244302d46", "text": "Reading Great Lakes' page How Payments Are Applied, I think you are probably correct about how the payments are applied: Interest first, minimum on each loan next, then any extra is applied to the highest interest loan. If I were you, I would make one payment a month, and I would make that payment as large as I possibly could. Trying to make more than one payment in a month is too complicated (and you aren't sure exactly how those payments get credited), and saving up for a big payment every few months is pointless and will cost you interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bcbb94c232d3c08232b50344bfc12be", "text": "The £500 are an expense associated with the loan, just like interest. You should have an expense account where you can put such financing expenses (or should create a new one). Again, treat it the same way you'll treat interest charges in future statements.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e401a8ff82d95f592eab06973e952461", "text": "While this question is old and I generally agree with the answers given I think there's another angle that needs a little illuminating: insurance. If you go with an 84 month loan your car will likely be worth less than the amount owed for substantially all of the entire 84 month loan period; this will be exacerbated if you put zero down and include the taxes and fees in the amount borrowed. Your lender will require you to carry full comprehensive/collision/liability coverage likely with a low maximum deductible. While the car is underwater it will probably also be a good idea to carry gap insurance because the last thing you want to do is write a check to your lender to shore up the loan to value deficit if the thing is totaled. These long term car loans (I've seen as high as 96 months) are a bear when it comes to depreciation and related insurance costs. There is more to this decision than the interest calculation. Obviously, if you had the cash at the front of this decision presumably you'll have the cash later to pay off the loan at your convenience. But while the loan is outstanding there are costs beyond interest to consider.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91e30ca1f672da78828bd723f5f8fba2", "text": "\"You have 1998-2011 income-contingent student loans, where the interest rate is the lower of (1% + base rate) or RPI (retail price inflation). For the next few years the it's likely to be (1% + base rate) as interest rates stay low and inflation shoots up. These loans only need to be repaid in proportion to your salary, and if they aren't repaid for long enough (e.g. the holder takes a career break for children) they are written off. So all-in-all, they are pretty good debt to have: low interest rate, and you might not have to repay them ever. It's likely that your mortgage will have a significantly higher rate than the student loan, so you'd be better off reducing your mortgage. Also, the higher deposit might mean you can get a lower interest rate on the whole mortgage because the lender will see you as a lower risk, so the return from \"\"investing\"\" it in your mortgage would be even greater than the raw interest rate. Having the student loan outstanding might make some difference to the \"\"affordability\"\" check for your mortgage payments, but lenders will be very familiar with how they work. Reducing your mortgage payments with the higher deposit should easily counterbalance that. Your own suggestion is to invest the £30K in a \"\"reasonably safe portfolio\"\" making 5%. There'll inevitably be some risk in that - 5% is a relatively high return in today's climate - but if you're willing to take that risk, you can investigate the effect on your mortgage to see if it's worth it or not.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2120e469025fbd901c6c37965d30050c", "text": "Do you know how SoFi's business model works? They're usually pretty conservative with their loans and refinancing. But I guess if they were looking to expand into riskier loans then it sounds like they've got some red tape that'd hold them back. Thank you for the explanation, much appreciated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "add38ca7424072cd6aa0226650874a23", "text": "\"I had about $16k in student loans. I defaulted on the loans, and they got > passed to a collection type agency (OSCEOLA). These guys are as legitimate as a collection agency can be. One thing that I feel is very sketchy is when they were verifying my identity they said \"\"Does your Social Security Number end in ####. Is your Birthday Month/Day/Year.\"\" That is not sketchy. It would be sketchy for a caller to ask you to give that information; that's a common scheme for identity theft. OSCEOLA are following the rules on this one. My mom suggested I should consider applying for bankruptcy Won't help. Student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy. You have the bankruptcy \"\"reform\"\" act passed during the Bush 43 regime for that. The loan itself is from school. What school? Contact them and ask for help. They may have washed their hands of your case when they turned over your file to OSCEOLA. Then again, they may not. It's worth finding out. Also, name and shame the school. Future applicants should be warned that they will do this. What can I do to aid in my negotiations with this company? Don't negotiate on the phone. You've discovered that they won't honor such negotiations. Ask for written communications sent by postal mail. Keep copies of everything, including both sides of the canceled checks you use to make payments (during the six months and in the future). Keep making the payments you agreed to in the conversation six months ago. Do not, EVER, ignore a letter from them. Do not, EVER, skip going to court if they send you a summons to appear. They count on people doing this. They can get a default judgement if you don't show up. Then you're well and truly screwed. What do you want? You want the $4K fee removed. If you want something else, figure out what it is. Here's what to do: Write them a polite letter explaining what you said here. Recount the conversation you had with their telephone agent where they said they would remove the $4K fee if you made payments. Recount the later conversation. If possible give the dates of both conversations and the names of the both agents. Explain the situation completely. Don't assume the recipient of your letter knows anything about your case. Include evidence that you made payments as agreed during the six months. If you were late or something, don't withhold that. Ask them to remove the extra $4K from your account, and ask for whatever else you want. Send the letter to them with a return receipt requested, or even registered mail. That will prevent them from claiming they didn't get it. And it will show them you're serious. Write a cover letter admitting your default, saying you relied on their negotiation to set things straight, and saying you're dismayed they aren't sticking to their word. The cover letter should ask for help sorting this out. Send copies of the letter with the cover letter to: Be sure to mark your letter to OSCEOLA \"\"cc\"\" all these folks, so they know you are asking for help. It can't hurt to call your congressional representative's office and ask to whom you should send the letter, and then address it by name. This is called Constituent Service, and they take pride in it. If you send this letter with copies you're letting them know you intend to fight. The collection agency may decide it's not worth the fight to get the $4K and decide to let it go. Again, if they call to pressure you, say you'd rather communicate in writing, and that they are not to call you by telephone. Then hang up. Should I hire a lawyer? Yes, but only if you get a court summons or if you don't get anywhere with this. You can give the lawyer all this paperwork I've suggested here, and it will help her come up to speed on your case. This is the kind of stuff the lawyer would do for you at well over $100 per hour. Is bankruptcy really an option Certainly not, unfortunately. Never forget that student lenders and their collection agencies are dangerous and clever predators. You are their lawful prey. They look at you, lick their chops, and think, \"\"food.\"\" Watch John Oliver's takedown of that industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxUAntt1z2c Good luck and stay safe.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21563ae3c38cc0680bd7c7e79b7cac5c", "text": "The second choice is a normal payment, just made early. This guards you against forgetting to make the payment later and incurring late payment fees -- which in this kind of loan are added to the balance and themselves accrue compounded interest. The first option is an extra payment, applied entirely to the principal. That lets you avoid years of accrued interest on that portion of the loan, and reduces the loan's actual cost. I think the extra payment is a better investment.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b00f0c3d4329a52f111699d883eee35b	Why does the Fed use PCE over CPI?	[ { "docid": "0c7a42b5ee2b37958df83977cda79da0", "text": "Consumers aren't the only economic participants impacted by a change in the Fed rate.... Inflation has WIDE ranging implications from the future liabilities of pension funds to the ongoing cost of our national debt. It doesn't make sense to consider only consumer inflationary experience. PCE is considered because it relates to consumption, which includes things paid for by other entities, like employer healthcare spend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "256c3abee2955e1b8497993a152e0dbf", "text": "(the average person doesn't care nor are they affected by how much their employer spends in healthcare) It may be true that the average person doesn't care how much their employer spends on healthcare, but it's not true that we aren't affected. From an employer's perspective, healthcare, wages, and all other benefits are part of the cost of having an employee. When healthcare goes up, it increases the total employee cost. Employers can handle this in several ways. They could reduce the amount they give investors (as dividends, stock buybacks, etc.). But then the stock is worth less and they have to make up the money somewhere else. They could pass the expense on to customers. But then the loss in business can easily cost more than the revenue raised. They can cut wages or other benefits. Then the average person will start caring...and might get a different job. (I found this article saying that 12M households spend >=50% of income on rent, so I'm assuming that an even greater number spend more than the recommended 30%, which means rent should be weighted as high as it is in CPI.) According to the census, that's only about 10% of households. It also notes that 64.4% of households are owner-occupied. They don't pay rent. The CPI makes up a number called owner's equivalent rent for those households to get to the higher percentage. The CPI is intended for things like wages. This makes it a good choice for a cost of living adjustment, but it doesn't quite represent the overall economy. And for investments, it's the broader economy that matters. Household consumption is less important. What the Fed says.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77f11f50bbd997629b688c1747b28103", "text": "The reason is in your own question. The answer is simple. They use that code to tax the product otherwise it would just be out of pocket expenses.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "83b89636b39e769baf9159b0300b05c7", "text": "Interest rates are at historic lows. In my opinion they can only go up from here. With that in mind, it is best to lock in interest rates now. I would only take an adjustable rate if I expected my personal income to increase in excess of the increase in interest rates. I hold that the recent technology of fracking has driven down the price of energy. I also believe that this is a short term situation and energy prices will return, and have already begun to do so. With the price of energy going up, inflation will return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "174d0dde5a33952ccf7e1b619bfc6b38", "text": "When the inflation rate increases, this tends to push up interest rates because of supply and demand: If the interest rate is less than the inflation rate, then putting your money in the bank means that you are losing value every day that it is there. So there's an incentive to withdraw your money and spend it now. If, say, I'm planning to buy a car, and my savings are declining in real value, then if I buy a car today I can get a better car than if I wait until tomorrow. When interest rates are high compared to inflation, the reverse is true. My savings are increasing in value, so the longer I leave my money in the bank the more it's worth. If I wait until tomorrow to buy a car I can get a better car than I would be able to buy today. Also, people find alternative places to keep their savings. If a savings account will result in me losing value every day my money is there, then maybe I'll put the money in the stock market or buy gold or whatever. So for the banks to continue to get enough money to make loans, they have to increase the interest rates they pay to lure customers back to the bank. There is no reason per se for rising interest rates to consumers to directly cause an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the amount of goods and services produced. Interest rates are a cost. If interest rates go up, people will borrow less money and spend it on other things, but that has no direct effect on the total money supply. Except ... you may note I put a bunch of qualifiers in that paragraph. In the United States, the Federal Reserve loans money to banks. It creates this money out of thin air. So when the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to the banks is low, the banks will borrow more from the Feds. As this money is created on the spot, this adds to the money supply, and thus contributes to inflation. So if interest rates to consumers are low, this encourages people to borrow more money from the banks, which encourages the banks to borrow more from the Feds, which increases the money supply, which increases inflation. I don't know much about how it works in other countries, but I think it's similar in most nations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aefe743b20c09ba211183e7b92a884ed", "text": "Increasing rates from .75% to 1% is an attempt to control debt. The new 1% rate drives down demand for bonds based on the old .75% rate and drives down demand for stocks who have decrease profit because they pay more interest on debt. This is the federal reserves primary tool controling inflation. 1% is what the banks pay to borrow money, they base their lending rates on this 1% figure. If a person can guarantee a .75% return on money borrowed at 1%, they will opt to save and instead lend their money out at 1%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51f8c1c0babf7b53f836d7e4acc07b74", "text": "Inflation follows the money, chases the money. All the money in the past few years has been directed into the banking system, and so we have an inflation in banking investments -- an investment bubble. The Fed makes a big mistake putting all the money into these investment banks. Better to put it into the population directly than let these buggering bankers control it. But then, the Fed is the buggering bankers, just wearing a different hat. It's Wyle E. Coyote time yet again as we wait to see how long it takes these bastards to realize there isn't anything substantial under their feet and it's a long way down to the canyon floor. Again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89fae9f2cf1d7c46da49b1909297a311", "text": "I have read this at least a dozen times, and watched several documentaries on it, but this is the clearest explanation yet. Thank you. I had not really considered the possibility that the fed is not the evil monster it's usually frame as before. Now I'm not sure how bad it is due to these conflicting viewpoints. The worst case I have heard against it (repeatedly) is that it's a privately owned corporation. And that it's for-profit. What is that about?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba16217f8b6e04587785eb12e95c7f63", "text": "The Fed is trying to keep the money supply growing at a rate just slightly faster than the increase in the total production in the economy. If this year we produced, say, 3% more goods and services than last year, than they try to make the money supply grow by maybe 4% or 5%. That way there should be a small rate of inflation. They are trying to prevent high inflation rates on one hand or deflation on the other. When the interest rate on T-bills is low, banks will borrow more money. As the Fed creates this money out of thin air when banks buy a T-bill, this adds money to the economy. When the interest rate on T-bills is high, banks will borrow little or nothing. As they'll be repaying older T-bills, this will result in less growth in the money supply or even contraction. So the Feds change the rate when they see that economic growth is accelerating or decelerating, or that the inflation rate is getting too high or too low.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e649f5d1205d4ae6da83c2df3596483", "text": "While the standard measure of inflation, the CPI, has [severe problems](https://www.forbes.com/sites/perianneboring/2014/02/03/if-you-want-to-know-the-real-rate-of-inflation-dont-bother-with-the-cpi/), there are still a huge range of inflation statistics from the various M values to specific commodity prices. Regardless of the relative value of any of these, stealing pension funds is immoral, evil, and destabilizing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ea51041cbb14ef2276388529ab024ee", "text": "Simply because forex brokers earn money from the spread that they offer you. Spread is the difference between buyers and sellers. If the buy price is at 1.1000 and the sell price is at 1.1002 then the spread is 2 pips. Now think that this broker is getting spread from its liquidity cheaper (for example 1 pip spread). As you can understand this broker makes a profit of 1 pip for each trade you place... Now multiply 1 pip X huge volume, and then you will understand why most forex brokers don't charge commissions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cff897020391a620928a2dc45c9594c", "text": "Thanks. It has taken me some time to understand how all this works, and there are still many gray areas I want to understand further. The Fed interest rate is the rate charged by banks to loan to each other to balance overnight reserves but only using the reserves they hold at the Fed. That adds no new money to the system, but increases the money multiplier a little since perhaps more loans can be made. Basically one bank with excess reserves can loan to another bank that needs reserves. The Fed injects no money here, only sets the rate for banks to do this with each other. When the Fed buys securities that effectively adds that many more dollars into circulation, which then gets hit by the money multiplier, adding a lot of new liquidity. I think historically the latter tracks increases in the money supply much better than the former. I think the St. Louis Fed has records online for all this dating back to the 1940's or so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa68f3257bac3f78679bdf8b096022c3", "text": "The Central Banks sets various rate for lending to Banks and Paying interest to Banks on excess funds. Apart from these the Central Banks also sets various other ratios that either create more liquidity or remove liquidity from Market. The CPI is just one input to the Central Bank to determine rate, is not the only deciding criteria. The CPI does not take into account the house price or the cost of renting in the basket of goods. One of the reasons could be that CPI contains basic essentials and also the fact that it should be easily mesurable over the period of time. For example Retail Price of a particular item is easily mesurable. The rent is not easily mesurable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72a2701b1f51d5da47456b2cbe3a98a0", "text": "I have been charting the CPI reported inflation rate vs . the yeald on the 10-year T-note. Usually, the two like to keep pace with each other. Sometimes the T-note is a bit higher than the inflation rate, sometimes the inflation rate is a bit higher than the T-note yeald. One does not appear to follow the other, but (until recently) the two do not diverge from each other by much. But all that changed recently and I am without an explanation as to why. Inflation dropped to zero (or a bit negative) yet the yeald on the 10-year T-note seemed to seek 2%. Edit: If you give this response a downvote then please be kind enough to explain why in a comment. Edit-2: CPI and 10-year T-note are what I have tracked, and continue to track. If you do not like my answer then provide a better one, yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fc1b6f50dab7b6be9ad8ae72e29381d", "text": "\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \"\"interest rate\"\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \"\"interest rates\"\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57165bce8395c150584db3d30c37a8d3", "text": "Well, you can't really have it both ways. You said that they were both using the same method, but, in fact, they aren't. You can call the weighting biased, but in fact if appears that BPP is doing little or minimal weighting, and yet still is showing that prices, in general, are mapping similarly to the BLS published CPI. Unless you're arguing an MIT 'academic conspiracy' (and even if you are), I think you've failed to make your case. BPP is independant, it uses a different methodology, and yet the results confirm those of the BLS.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d03d7422fd930df0f13189e84937a6fa", "text": "The current FED's spend is to encourage spends by putting in more liquidity, SOME of this funds [directly or indirectly] reach emerging markets and get invested in stocks ... so without these forex inflows, the Balance of Payments would be under pressure ... so these forex are artificially keeping the Exchange rate down. For example the USD vs INR rate was in the range of 1 USD to around INR 50 for nearly 4-5 years. In the period the inflation in India was around 10-15%, so ideally the rate should have slowly moved towards INR 60, however it took a news of FED cut-back to more the rates in the range of INR 65 before stabilizing to Rs 60", "title": "" }, { "docid": "154d7f5c99eb49598a76e1db747b22f3", "text": "I'm not sure what point you think I was making. It looks like you think I'm supporting the idea that QE causes inflation, which it doesn't. At least not when it is being used as it has been. What it does seem to have done is depress interest rates and create a speculative market that doesn't match up with economic reality. It has also created a ridiculous profit loop for investment banks selling bonds to the Fed. You can't talk about QE without mentioning that banks are now incentivized to hold onto reserves because they can collect interest. So the banks screwed up, were heavily subsidized under the pretense of it being best for the taxpayer, and were then rewarded for sitting on all of that money. If I support any viewpoint it is this. The government agreed to give the banks a thin veneer of solvency by granting them enormous sums in a short period. Obviously if that much currency went straight into the market it would be a disaster, so it put a mechanism in place to reward them for holding onto it. All QE did was massively increase the debt burden of the government, which will be passed on to taxpayers in the form of taxes, fines, fewer benefits, worsening infrastructure, and more restrictions. QE may have not caused inflation, but it certainly didn't help the vast majority of Americans who will simply see their standard of living decline at a quicker pace. I'm sure this will get blamed on immigrants or something instead of the reality that our government is tacitly rewarding banks for not lending to individuals. Why would they? An individual might not pay them back, but the government always will by simply extracting more out of those very individuals.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7d5d4973bd4c6b4c77588421fb0d95bd	How to find out if a company is legit?	[ { "docid": "d04b0cfd7864eee34ccd4868ec4dd2c8", "text": "It depends greatly from place to place, but nothing beats the Internet reviews' research. If you can't find anything digging slightly deeper than the impressive home page, then you probably should be worried. As it seems that you are. Specifically, I do these: @JohnFX mentions a valid point: check for physical presence. Check that the office address is a real office and not a PO box or residential; call the number and see who answers it (if you call several times during different hours and the same person answers - that's probably a one-man operation). But that doesn't always help because short-term renting an office is not all that hard and getting a call-centre outsourced to a third-world country doesn't cost all that much. It definitely helps if you're dealing with someone local, but if you're in Sweden and checking out a suspicious operation in Cyprus - this is definitely not enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0464e0f3939a4c469c4a6102069938d7", "text": "If you are trying to weed out companies that are fronts for scams, one way is to look for a physical address that checks out with the phone book and a phone number posted on the site that connects you to an actual person. By itself this isn't a guarantee that the company is legit, but it will weed out a large number of fraudulent companies hiding behind PO boxes. That is, companies that defraud a lot of people don't usually make it very easy to track them down or contact them to complain or sue them.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0e3085ac5c2dcd51f5a17ac8f04f1cdb", "text": "\"This information is clearly \"\"material\"\" (large impact) and \"\"non-public\"\" according to the statement of the problem. Also, decisions like United States v. Carpenter make it clear that you do not need to be a member of the company to do illegal insider trading on its stock. Importantly though, stackexchange is not a place for legal advice and this answer should not be construed as such. Legal/compliance at Company A would be a good place to start asking questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14d4acc4a7f96f971fd06ddb006a9bdc", "text": "You may want to dive into the various scandals and further hefty settlements between blue chip brands and agency networks here. Ask around if Dentsu Aegie finances enjoyed being honest to their clients as to where the money was going and what kind of online advertising was actually in place, just to name a specific example. Of course online ads find positive outcomes for lots of businesses. You don’t expect any less when you see Google revenues to be honest. It still doesn’t mean that the whole tracking and private information dragging framework isn’t wrong or that so many web experiences aren’t soiled by intrusive and nasty ads.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8c884a223c323a9785b219e2f0f7495", "text": "They have no standard of conduct, their review process is opaque and they are hostile to employers who ask for content to be reviewed. Unless you threaten to sue they take no action against slander or libel. We have had an unhappy employee flood the site with reviews using multiple fake emails, accuse an employee of a crime, etc and they did nothing but encourage us to buy their services. We used to advertise jobs on their site - never again. They are just as bad as Yelp.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bec3918e8216a7652483ede38067e06b", "text": "people claim that these sites are scams I would like to know which idiots or which website says so. And I would say you haven't done your research properly. At the bottom of the page you can see this, on IG's website, very important quote authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority Plus500UK Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority Secondly you go and check the authencity of the firm in question on this link. your money in, you might as well kiss it goodbye This might be true because they trade in products, which if you don't understand you will more or less will loose your money. N.B. I have an account with IG for the past 5 years and they haven't scammed me yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "915e6ec3c328a2e4c2e8506fe7bc97cb", "text": "\"This is several questions wrapped together: How can I diplomatically see the company's financial information? How strong a claim does a stockholder or warrantholder have to see the company's financials? What information do I need to know about the company financials before deciding to buy in? I'll start with the easier second question (which is quasi implicit). Stockholders typically have inspection rights. For example, Delaware General Corporate Law § 220 gives stockholders the right to inspect and copy company financial information, subject to certain restrictions. Check the laws and corporate code of your company's state of incorporation to find the specific inspection right. If it is an LLC or partnership, then the operating agreement usually controls and there may be no inspection rights. If you have no corporate stock, then of course you have no statutory inspection rights. My (admittedly incomplete) understanding is that warrantholders generally have no inspection rights unless somehow contracted for. So if you vest as a corporate stockholder, it'll be your right to see the financials—which may make even a small purchase valuable to you as a continuing employee with the right to see the financials. Until then, this is probably a courtesy and not their obligation. The first question is not easy to answer, except to say that it's variable and highly personal for small companies. Some people interpret it as prying or accusatory, the implication being that the founders are either hiding something or that you need to examine really closely the mouth of their beautiful gift horse. Other people may be much cooler about the question, understanding that small companies are risky and you're being methodical. And in some smaller companies, they may believe giving you the expenses could make office life awkward. If you approach it professionally, directly, and briefly (do not over-explain yourself) with the responsible accountant or HR person (if any), then I imagine it should not be a problem for them to give some information. Conversely, you may feel comfortable enough to review a high-level summary sheet with a founder, or to find some other way of tactfully reviewing the right information. In any case, I would keep the request vague, simple, and direct, and see what information they show you. If your request is too specific, then you risk pushing them to show information A, which they refuse to do, but a vague request would've prompted them to show you information B. A too-specific request might get you information X when a vague request could have garnered XYZ. Vague requests are also less aggressive and may raise fewer objections. The third question is difficult to say. My personal understanding is some perspective of how venture capitalists look at the investment opportunity (you didn't say how new this startup is or what series/stage they are on, so I'll try to stay vague). The actual financials are less relevant for startups than they are for other investments because the situation will definitely change. Most venture capital firms like to look at the burn rate or amount of cash spent, usually at a monthly rate. A high burn rate relative to infusions of cash suggests the company is growing rapidly but may have a risk of toppling (i.e. failing before exit). Burn rate can change drastically during the early life of the startup. Of course burn rate needs the context of revenues and reserves (and latest valuation is helpful as a benchmark, but you may be able to calculate that from the restricted share offer made to you). High burn rate might not be bad, if the company is booming along towards a successful exit. You might also want to look at some sort of business plan or info sheet, rather than financials alone. You want to gauge the size of the market (most startups like to claim 9- or 10-figure markets, so even a few percentage points of market share will hit revenue into the 8-figures). You'll also have to have a sense for the business plan and model and whether it's a good investment or a ridiculous rehash (\"\"it's Twitter for dogs meets Match.com for Russian Orthodox singles!\"\"). In other words, appraise it like an investor or VC and figure out whether it's a prospect for decent return. Typical things like competition, customer acquisition costs, manufacturing costs are relevant depending on the type of business activity. Of course, I wouldn't ignore psychology (note that economists and finance people don't generally condone the following sort of emotional thinking). If you don't invest in the company and it goes big, you'll kick yourself. If it goes really big, other people will either assume you are rich or feel sad for you if you say you didn't get rich. If you invest but lose money, it may not be so painful as not investing and losing out the opportunity. So if you consider the emotional aspect of personal finance, it may be wise to invest at least a little, and hedge against \"\"woulda-shoulda\"\" syndrome. That's more like emotional advice than hard-nosed financial advice. So much of the answer really depends on your particular circumstances. Obviously you have other considerations like whether you can afford the investment, which will be on you to decide. And of course, the § 83(b) election is almost always recommended in these situations (which seems to be what you are saying) to convert ordinary income into capital gain. You may also need cash to pay any up-front taxes on the § 83(b) equity, depending on your circumstances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40d2d9a6d76c74ae1e084e4f54346719", "text": "See I believe that it's pretty in the open. A shell company whose only purpose is to license out some intellectual property to an affiliate company should be easy to spot. A company with 5 employees and a tiny office should not be claiming millions of income that originated in an affiliate company. My point is that these things are not clearly defined in the code and should be, not that they are necessarily being hidden. I've seen at least 5 articles in the last year similar to this one about other large companies, so I wish congress and whoever else would do something about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a3a7dac7a8a2d30b9414372d5ab8319", "text": "Looking at these reviews I would filter them too. They do look like they're either straight copies of each other or they sound like they're written by the same person; A commercial writer. There are just patterns in the structure that you don't see from more random reviews.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd735c709a96e97d3779d965421ec642", "text": "My first thought is: email? Are you sure it is legitimate? Verify everything. Assuming it is legitimate:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a55bba895997279718bc6a7a8b1739de", "text": "Like all other trading brokers in the industry, they both have been acknowledged with mixed reviews. Before signing up, it’s important to know whether they are running a legitimate operation or not. You can see BinaryOptionsTrading-Review.com, judgebinaryoptions.com etc. to inquiries about these sites. They conduct in-depth research to identify the legitimacy of each brokers present in the market. Hope it will help you in making the right decision.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80ce86cb388a91616d77dc092f204bc4", "text": "Yeah, there are a lot of things that 'poof' you into existence with them. Their whole business model is that they claim to have dirt on every established business. And they basically do. Attempting to get a number with them is really only an issue for brand new businesses. Regardless, they will send you very misleading spam and junk mail. And a lot of it comes off to me as threats/extortion. They also listed my home phone number for one of my businesses for years. When you call for assistance, they really only care about tricking you into buying some package, and don't care about being helpful or correcting their records. I know I sound mean, but honestly their entire sales method on me was to trick me into buying something I knew I didn't want or need. With multiple salespersons there. It's really scummy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20118d2acc2ddab6bc7eba66d3175b22", "text": "From what you have written, it could be a boiler room company. These operate with fancy website and have proper book keeping systems but are elaborate scams. How did you find about this broker. If there was a seller when you purchased the shares, there is no reason you can't be seller", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34f60003b4847e6b7e946a91d4217856", "text": "So while these companies are not a scam, 30% feels pretty darn high. How about you negotiate a much lower rate? 10% or 15%? Here is why: You will spend time and effort (which technically isn't free) to find the money. I bet you can find it if you look hard enough. But you could also just collect it and give this company a cut for their expertise. However if 30% bugs you (and it would bug me) then consider their reality. They spent money to find the funds and contact you. HOWEVER, that is a sunk cost. It is already spent. You can find it on your own and they get zip. Or you negotiate a lower percentage, they get enough to cover their costs and make some profit and you save a ton of time. Since they took the time to explain themselves here, they are either scammers trying to bully you into compliance, or they are legit. It is field that people might look down on, but it isn't criminal. I would look for the money if it were me, but I feel I have enough free time that it would be worth it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c72300fdf54c00f4809352f038c5e9c2", "text": "Definitely sounds like scam. Odds are are high that the page he gave you the link to is a fake and this app is pure identity theft. Run away, unless you are interested enough to do the work to check with the company and confirm this is legitimate. Nobody contacts strangers with this kind of story without it being a scam. The fact that this one sounds shady is an attempt to keep you from questioning it too closely. Think about it: if it was at all legitimate, couldn't he find a friend of a friend? If it sounds too good to be true, it ain't true. Never download software unless you know exactly where it is coming from. It could be anything from ransomware, to something that first steals all you financial info, then uss you mail account to send a similar pitch to all your friends, to a botnet that uses your machine to attack other machines.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c322c8725b4fe2a3ed0f92cd9989513", "text": "I'm a programmer, and worked for a company doing natural language analysis and parsing. Yes, it is possible to figure out what reviews are more valuable than others by passsing it through an algorithm. How the heck do you think spam filters work?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47d2401e8c9dcd835a24ea517a73bda6", "text": "I've seen this tool. I'm just having a hard time finding where I can just get a list of all the companies. For example, you can get up to 100 results at a time, if I just search latest filings for 10-K. This isn't really an efficient way to go about what I want.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
21c861c229bbcf5a42e1ea490c28b95f	For the first time in my life, I'm going to be making real money…what should I do with it?	[ { "docid": "a6538981686b2af921afea0fb21d7b9c", "text": "\"Fool's 13 steps to invest is a good starting point. Specifically, IFF all your credit cards are paid, and you made sure you've got no outstanding liabilities (that also accrues interest), stock indexes might be a good place for 5-10 years timeframes. For grad school, I'd probably look into cash ISA (or local equivalent thereof) -the rate of return is going to be lower, but having it in a separate account at least makes it mentally \"\"out of sight - out of mind\"\", so you can make sure the money's there WHEN you need it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "979cd6d920dba200d173a0bf21da30fd", "text": "Fund your retirement accounts first. Even as an intern, it is still worthwhile to open a Roth IRA and start contributing to it. See my answer to a similar question: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "154937e77d1c1a746274efc561edfd30", "text": "If I may echo the Roth comment - The Roth is a tax designation, not an end investment, so you still need to research and decide what's appropriate. I recommend the Roth for the long term investments, but keep in mind, even if you feel you may need to tap the Roth sooner than later, all deposits may be withdrawn at any time with no tax or penalty. Roth is great to store the emergency money for many if they aren't 100% sure they have enough cash to save for retirement. As you get further along, and see that you don't need it, change how it's invested to longer term, a mix of stocks (I prefer ETFs that mimic the S&P)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "482d51606548f12a512f4ea8051c8227", "text": "Your attitude is great, but be careful to temper your (awesome) ambition with a dose of reality. Saving is investing is great, the earlier the better, and seeing retirement at a young age with smooth lots of life's troubles; saving is smart and we all know it. But as a college junior, be honest with yourself. Don't you want to screw around and play with some of that money? Your first time with real income, don't you want to blow it on a big TV, vacation, or computer? Budget out those items with realistic costs. See the pros and cons of spending that money keeping in mind the opportunity cost. For example, when I was in college, getting a new laptop for $2000 (!) was easily more important to me than retirement. I don't regret that. I do regret buying my new truck too soon and borrowing money to do it. These are judgment calls. Here is the classic recipe: Adjust the numbers or businesses to your personal preferences. I threw out suggestions so you can research them and get an idea of what to compare. And most importantly of all. DO NOT GET INTO CREDIT CARD DEBT. Use credit if you wish, but do not carry a balance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b554c68ca04fc57f74a5dffea17ef61", "text": "On the one hand, it's a great idea to open a Roth IRA now, once you've got the cash to contribute. It's a tax designation sounds like it would fit your meager earnings this year. The main reason to open one now rather than later is that some types of withdrawls require the account be aged 5 years. But you can also withdraw the amount you've contributed tax free any time. Student loans right now are pricey, so if you're carrying a balance at say 6.8 percent fixed you should pay that down ASAP. Beyond that, I'd keep the rest liquid for now. Having that kind of liquid cash is extremely reassuring, and many of the biggest returns on investment are going to be in your personal life. More fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, computer backups, chest freezers and bulk meat purchases, etc. One example I see every six months is car insurance: I can pay for six months in full or I can pay a smaller monthly bill plus a small fee. That fee is well above current market rates. You see this everywhere; people searching for lower minimum payments rather than lower total costs. Save your money up and be the smart buyer. It's too damn expensive to be broke.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "02bb9d727e9d196b12321ebeac226451", "text": "Put it in the bank and earn the meager interest rate. By far your most important investment is finishing your education and as such this money might be needed to do so. If you don't need the money during your education you will undoubtedly need it for a new apartment/furnishings/moving expenses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af223850d5c390d6a986d4bdb93cfedf", "text": "Establish good saving and spending habits. Build up your savings so that when you do buy a car, you can pay cash. Make spending decisions, especially for housing, transportation and entertainment, that allow you to save a substantial portion of your income. The goal is to get yourself to a place where you have enough net worth that the return on your assets is greater than the amount you can earn by working. (BTW, this is basically what I did. I put my two sons through top colleges on my dime and retired six years ago at the age of 56).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd3c6e4a2fd7f18be93d7d51a00d951f", "text": "That's what I would do; 1.2 million dollars is a lot of money, but it doesn't make you retired for the rest of your life: There is a big crisis coming soon (my personal prediction) in the next 10-15 years, and when this happens: government will hold your money if you leave them in the bank (allowing you to use just part of it; you will have to prove the reason you need it), government will pass bills to make it very hard to close your investment positions, and government will pass new laws to create new taxes for people with a lot of money (you). To have SOME level of security I would separate my investment in the following: 20% I would buy gold certificates and the real thing (I would put the gold in a safe(s)). 20% I would put in bitcoin (you would have to really study this if you are new to crypto currency in order to be safe). 40% I would invest in regular finance products (bonds, stocks and options, FX). 20% I would keep in the bank for life expenses, specially if you don't want work for money any more. 20% I would invest in startup companies exchanging high risk hoping for a great return. Those percentages might change a little depending how good/confident you become after investing, knowing about business, etc...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d12a01b8f903137662fada452e2939e5", "text": "\"Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund. Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time. This should go into a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account or money market account. Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings. In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA. The goal should be about 15% of your income. You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that. The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget. Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun). Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving. All three areas are the key to building wealth. Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins. That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice. Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course). Do you want to retire early? Invest more for retirement. Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property? Start educating yourself and invest for that. Are you passionate about a certain charity? Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours. Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d51a448fad7717083cd1dff308d57a4c", "text": "\"I agree with Grade 'Eh' Bacon's answer, but there are a couple of ideas that are relevant to your particular situation: If I were you, I would invest at least half of the cash in growth ETFs because you're young enough that market variability doesn't affect you and long term growth is important. The rest should be invested in safer investments (value and dividend ETFs, bonds, cash) so that you have something to live off in the near term. You said you wanted to invest ethically. The keyword to search is \"\"socially responsible ETFs\"\". There are many, and if this is important to you, you'll have to read their prospectus to find one that matches your ethics. Since you're American, the way I understand it, you need to file taxes on income; selling stocks at a gain is income. You want to make sure that as your stocks appreciate, you sell some every year and immediately rebuy them so that you pay a small tax bill every year rather than one huge tax bill 20 years from now. Claiming about $20600 of capital gains every year would be tax free assuming you are not earning any other money. I would claim a bit more in years where you make a lot. You can mitigate your long term capital gains tax exposure by opening a Roth IRA and maxing that out. Capital gains in the Roth IRA are not taxable. Even if you don't have income from working, you can have some income if you invest in stocks that pay dividends, which would allow you to contribute to a Roth IRA. You should figure where you're going to be living because you will want to minimize the currency risk of having your money in USD while you're living abroad. If the exchange rate were to change by a lot, you might find yourself a lot poorer. There are various hedging strategies, but the easiest one is to invest some of your money in securities of the country you'll be living in. You should look into how you'll be converting money into the foreign currency. There are sometimes way of minimizing the spread when converting large amounts of money, e.g., Norbert's gambit. Shaving off 1.5% when exchanging $100k saves $1500.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7986fd6da389b272c45d94c9feac0dcf", "text": "\"From what you say, a savings account sounds like the most appropriate option. (Of course you should keep your checking account too to use for day-to-day expenses, but put money that you want to sock away into the savings account.) The only way to guarantee you won't lose money and also guarantee that you can take the money out whenever you want is to put your money in a checking or savings account. If you put it in a savings account you will at least earn some paltry amount of interest, whereas with a checking account you wont. The amount of interest you earn with only a few hundred (or even a few thousand) dollars will be miniscule, but you know that the nominal value of your money won't go down. The real value of your money will go down, because the interest you're earning will be less than inflation. (That is, if you put $1000 in, you know there will be at least $1000 in there until you take some out. But because of inflation, that $1000 won't buy as much in the future as it does today, so the effective buying power of your money will go down.) However, there's no way to avoid this while keeping your money absolutely safe from loss and maintaining absolute freedom to take it out whenever you want. To address a couple of the alternatives you mentioned: It's good that you're thinking about this now. However, you shouldn't worry unduly about \"\"getting the most out of your money\"\" at this stage. As you said, you have $400 and will soon be making $200/week. In other words, two weeks after your job starts, you'll have earned as much as your entire savings before you started the job. Even if all your cash \"\"went down the drain\"\", you'd make it up in two weeks. Of course, you don't want to throw your money away for nothing. But when your savings are small relative to your income, it's not really worth it to agonize over investment choices to try to get the maximum possible return on your investment. Instead, you should do just what you seem to be doing: prioritize safety, both in terms of keeping your money in a safe account, and try to save rather than spending frivolously. In your current situation, you can double your savings in one month, by working at your part-time job. There's no investment anywhere there that can even come close to that. So don't worry about missing out on some secret opportunity. At this stage, you can earn far more by working than you can by investing, so you should try to build up your savings. When you have enough that you are comfortable with more risk, then you will be in a position to consider other kinds of investments (like stock market index funds), which are riskier but will earn you better returns in the long run.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b8f5ad2035755610aa45bc32b482f3c", "text": "I'd say only look for business opportunities in areas where you have quite a lot of specific knowledge, or the ability to learn from someone who already has it. Further, particularly in a saturated market like the one you describe, you need to have a clear idea of how you're going to be better than other players. It's not enough to just want to do something to make money. You need a solid plan and a solid angle on how you're going to be better than others. If you don't have those things yet for what you're looking at, do more research until you do. If you never get there, don't bother. You're essentially saying you want to exploit arbitrage opportunities, which is a legitimate way to make a living, but it requires a LOT of market knowledge, because there are probably millions of people doing the exact same thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "416ef7846826a6105c8771f921f2ad33", "text": "\"You don't state a long term goal for your finances in your message, but I'm going to assume you want to retire early, and retire well. :-) any other ideas I'm missing out on? A fairly common way to reach financial independence is to build one or more passive income streams. The money returned by stock investing (capital gains and dividends) is just one such type of stream. Some others include owning rental properties, being a passive owner of a business, and producing goods that earn long-term royalties instead of just an immediate exchange of time & effort for cash. Of these, rental property is probably one of the most well-known and easiest to learn about, so I'd suggest you start with that as a second type of investment if you feel you need to diversify from stock ownership. Especially given your association with the military, it is likely there is a nearby supply of private housing that isn't too expensive (so easier to get started with) and has a high rental demand (so less risk in many ways.) Also, with our continued current low rate environment, now is the time to lock-in long term mortgage rates. Doing so will reap huge benefits as rates and rents will presumably rise from here (though that isn't guaranteed.) Regarding the idea of being a passive business owner, keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean starting a business yourself. Instead, you might look to become a partner by investing money with an existing or startup business, or even buying an existing business or franchise. Sometimes, perfectly good business can be transferred for surprisingly little down with the right deal structure. If you're creative in any way, producing goods to earn long-term royalties might be a useful path to go down. Writing books, articles, etc. is just one example of this. There are other opportunities depending on your interests and skill, but remember, the focus ought to be on passive royalties rather than trading time and effort for immediate money. You only have so many hours in a year. Would you rather spend 100 hours to earn $100 every year for 20 years, or have to spend 100 hours per year for 20 years to earn that same $100 every year? .... All that being said, while you're way ahead of the game for the average person of your age ($30k cash, $20k stocks, unknown TSP balance, low expenses,) I'm not sure I'd recommend trying to diversify quite yet. For one thing, I think you need to keep some amount of your $30k as cash to cover emergency situations. Typically people would say 6 months living expenses for covering employment gaps, but as you are in the military I don't think it's as likely you'll lose your job! So instead, I'd approach it as \"\"How much of this cash do I need over the next 5 years?\"\" That is, sum up $X for the car, $Y for fun & travel, $Z for emergencies, etc. Keep that amount as cash for now. Beyond that, I'd put the balance in your brokerage and get it working hard for you now. (I don't think an average of a 3% div yield is too hard to achieve even when picking a safe, conservative portfolio. Though you do run the risk of capital losses if invested.) Once your total portfolio (TSP + brokerage) is $100k* or more, then consider pulling the trigger on a second passive income stream by splitting off some of your brokerage balance. Until then, keep learning what you can about stock investing and also start the learning process on additional streams. Always keep an eye out for any opportunistic ways to kick additional streams off early if you can find a low cost entry. (*) The $100k number is admittedly a rough guess pulled from the air. I just think splitting your efforts and money prior to this will limit your opportunities to get a good start on any additional streams. Yes, you could do it earlier, but probably only with increased risk (lower capital means less opportunities to pick from, lower knowledge levels -- both stock investing and property rental) also increase risk of making bad choices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbcc31b3b194bb4a06218bfa4438d6f3", "text": "The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1a1341a13f2f501d6371c61107829c7", "text": "\"I don't understand the OP's desire \"\" I'd love to have a few hundred dollars coming in each month until I really get the hang of things. \"\" When growing your wealth so that it will be large enough in retirement to throw off enough profits to live on ... you must not touch the profits generated along the way. You must reinvest them to earn even more profits. The profits you earn need not show up as 'cash'. Most investments also grow in re-sale value. This growth is called capital gains, and is just-as/more important than cash flows like interest income or dividends. When evaluating investing choices, you think of your returns as a percent of your total savings at any time. So expecting $100/month equals $1,200/year would require a $12,000 investment to earn 10%/yr. From the sounds of it the OP's principal is not near that amount, and an average 10% should not be expected by an investment with reasonable risk. I would conclude that 'There is no free lunch'. You need to continually save and add to your principal. You must invest to expect a reasonable return (less than 10%) and you must reinvest all profits (whether cash or capital gains). Or else start a business - which cannot be compared to passive investing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78376c71017ce85c9868e6f3729b6df2", "text": "Your edit indicates that you may not yet be ready to get heavily involved in investing. I say this because it seems you are not very familiar with foundational finance/investing concepts. The returns that you are seeing as 'yearly' are just the reported earnings every 12 months, which all public companies must publish. Those 'returns' are not the same as the earnings of individual investors (which will be on the basis of dividends paid by the company [which are often annual, sometimes semi-annual, and sometimes quarterly], and by selling shares purchased previously. Note that over 3 months time, investing in interest-earning investments [like bank deposits] will earn you something like 0.5%. Investing in the stock market will earn you something like 2% (but with generally higher risk than investing in something earning interest). If you expect to earn significant amounts of money in only 3 months, you will not be able to without taking on extreme levels of risk [risk as high as going to a casino]. Safe investing takes time - years. In the short term, the best thing you can do to earn money is by earning more [through a better job, or a second part-time job], or spending less [budget, pay down high interest debt, and spend less than you earn]. I highly recommend you look through this site for more budgeting questions on how to get control of your finances. If you feel that doesn't apply to you, I encourage you to do a lot more research on investing before you send your money somewhere - you could be taking on more risk than you realize, if you are not properly informed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd88013d135507b19b21b17d512fc998", "text": "\"My father imparted this advice to me when I was a teenager, and it hasn't failed me yet. > Pay yourself first What this means is that the first \"\"bill\"\" you pay should always be your savings. Preferably in a way that automatically comes out of your paycheck or account without requiring you to take an active step to make it happen. I save a ton of money, but I am no more disciplined than anyone else. I just realized that over the years of progressing in my career that I gradually got higher and higher salaries, yet never had a substantial increase in the money I had leftover in my bank at the end of the month despite the fact that I make about 8x the money I used to live reasonably comfortably on. Therein is the point, we spend whatever money we see, so you almost have to hide it from yourself. First, participate to the fullest in your company's 401k if they offer it. After a while you will adjust naturally to the net take home pay and won't miss the savings you are accumulating. Absent that, or in addition to that, set up a separate bank or investment account and arrange an automatic transfer from your checking account every month. Then set up automatic investing in CD's or some other less-liquid-than-cash investment so you it is just enough hassle to get at the money that you won't do it on a whim. It sounds too simple, but it works.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6913ee4ec4b8cc12d1a45e16e86dc931", "text": "\"E) Spend a small amount of that money on getting advice from a paid financial planner. (Not a broker or someone offering you \"\"free\"\" advice; their recommendations may be biased toward what makes them the most money). A good financial planner will talk to you about your plans and expectations both short and long term, and about your risk tolerance (would a drop in value panic you even if you know it's likely to recover and average out in the long run, that sort of thing), and about how much time and effort you want to put into actively managing your portfolio. From those answers, they will generate an initial proposed plan, which will be tested against simulations of the stock market to make sure it holds up. Typically they'll do about 100 passes over the plan to get a sense of its probable risk versus growth-potential versus volatility, and tweak the plan until the normal volatility is within the range you've said you're comfortable with while trying to produce the best return with the least risk. This may not be a perfect plan for you -- but at the very least it will be an excellent starting point until you decide (if you ever do decide) that you've learned enough about investing that you want to do something different with the money. It's likely to be better advice than you'll get here simply because they can and will take the time to understand your specific needs rather than offering generalities because we're trying to write something that applies to many people, all of whom have different goals and time horizons and financial intestinal fortitude. As far as a house goes: Making the mistake of thinking of a house as an investment is a large part of the mindset that caused the Great Recession. Property can be an investment (or a business) or it can be something you're living in; never make the mistake of putting it in both categories at once. The time to buy a house is when you want a house, find a house you like in a neighborhood you like, expect not to move out of it for at least five years, can afford to put at least 20% down payment, and can afford the ongoing costs. Owning your home is not more grown-up, or necessarily financially advantageous even with the tax break, or in any other way required until and unless you will enjoy owning your home. (I bought at age 50ish, because I wanted a place around the corner from some of my best friends, because I wanted better noise isolation from my neighbors, because I wanted a garden, because I wanted to do some things that almost any landlord would object to, and because I'm handy enough that I can do a lot of the routine maintenance myself and enjoy doing it -- buy a house, get a free set of hobbies if you're into that. And part of the reason I could afford this house, and the changes that I've made to it, was that renting had allowed me to put more money into investments. My only regret is that I didn't realise how dumb it was not to max out my 401(k) match until I'd been with the company for a decade ... that's free money I left on the table.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd09e8a1db0d28c7d37ad2059e0bdf28", "text": "\"I would advise against \"\"wasting\"\" this rare opportunity on mundane things, like by paying off debts or buying toys - You can always pay those from your wages. Plus, you'll inevitably accumulate new debts over time, so debt repayment is an ongoing concern. This large pile of cash allows you to do things you can't ordinarily do, so use the opportunity to invest. Buy a house, then rent it out. Rent an apartment for yourself. The house rent will pay most (maybe all) of the mortgage, plus the mortgage interest is tax-deductible, so you get a lower tax bill. And houses appreciate over time, so that's an added bonus. When you get married, and start a family, you'll have a house ready for you, partially paid off with other people's money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecc92bf2b99166b4148b7fa1afc61d2f", "text": "You're in a good spot: making good money with prospects for that to continue for the foreseeable future. Even if/when you quit dancing nursing pays quite well. Leaving all that money in a savings account is a mistake. At a minimum: Open an IRA account at any of the discount brokers (Schwab, Fidelity, etc). Roth is fine to start, once your taxable income goes up consider switching to a traditional IRA. Max out your IRA every year. Invest in low-fee index funds. There are frankly too many options these days, but an S&P 500 Index fund is almost never a mistake. Open a regular taxable investment account where you can invest additional money. Leave some cash/savings for emergencies. But if you do #3 you can always sell some investments in a cash emergency. Yes, it may lose money in the short term, but given your steady income, not a huge concern. I think if you read all the investment advice out there, you'll see a familiar theme along these lines. Your nest egg will grow considerably when you invest.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d04fd41013568988a53aa4a15fb976da	What is a “Junk Bond”?	[ { "docid": "0cd1228e976fa63d4cbdd5e513402698", "text": "\"A junk bond is, broadly, a bond with a non-negligible risk of default. (\"\"Bond\"\" ought to be defined elsewhere, but broadly it's a financial instrument you buy from a company or government, where they promise to pay you back the principal and some interest over time, on a particular schedule.) The name \"\"junk\"\" is a bit exaggerated: many of them are issued by respectable and reasonably stable businesses. junk bonds were required to do large leveraged buyouts. This means: the company issued fairly risky, fairly high-yield debt, to buy out equity holders. They have to pay a high rate on the debt because the company's now fairly highly geared (ie has a lot of debt relative to its value) and it may have to pay out a large fraction of its earnings as interest. What is a junk bond and how does it differ from a regular bond? It's only a matter of degree and nomenclature. A bond that has a credit rating below a particular level (eg S&P BBB-) is called junk, or more politely \"\"non-investment grade\"\" or \"\"speculative\"\". It's possible for an existing bond to be reclassified from one side to another, or for a single issuer to have different series some of which are more risky than others. The higher the perceived risk, the more interest the bond must pay offer in order to attract lenders. Why is there higher risk/chance of default? Well, why would a company be considered at higher risk of failing to repay its debt? Basically it comes down to doubt about the company's future earnings being sufficient to repay its debt, which could be for example:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8b09becad77e75ae4672acfab2fd135", "text": "From wikipedia: In finance, a high-yield bond (non-investment-grade bond, speculative-grade bond, or junk bond) is a bond that is rated below investment grade at the time of purchase. These bonds have a higher risk of default or other adverse credit events, but typically pay higher yields than better quality bonds in order to make them attractive to investors. In terms of your second question, you have the causality backwards. They are called junk bonds because they have a higher risk of default.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b74dfe64b6195ef4fca3165225dc1967", "text": "\"A \"\"junk bond\"\" is one that pays a high yield UP FRONT because there is a good chance that it could default. So the higher interest rate is necessary to try to compensate for the default Junk bonds are used in leveraged buyouts (LBOs) because such deals are INHERENTLY risky. \"\"Normal\"\" companies may have 20%-30% debt and the rest equity, so that the company will have to lose 70%-80% of its value before the debtholders start losing money on \"\"normal\"\" bonds. But in an LBO, the company may have only 10%-20% equity and the rest debt. Meaning that if it loses that small equity cushion, the value of the \"\"junk\"\" bonds will be impaired.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2928f152a15e3605c3079368d91b69d3", "text": "The issuer pays (negative money in this case) to the holder. The person you sold your borrowed bond to gets this (negative) amount. The person who you lent you the bond is eligible for that (negative) payment, they were the original holder of the bond. When you return the bond you thus have to compensate the original holder. Now turn around the cash flows and you're there. The new holder pays the issuer, the original holder pays you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b346ac30ad1dc6e6710e573670fca002", "text": "Gundlach shared a chart that showed how investors in European “junk” bonds are willing to accept the same no-default return as they are for U.S. Treasury bonds. In other words, the yield on European “junk” bonds is about the same—between 2 percent and 3 percent—as the yield on U.S. Treasuries, even though the risk profile of the two could not be more different. Sounds like a strong indicator to me. How might this play out in the US?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6039901bd125dde0231f61f69b5073ed", "text": "\"Were you thinking of an annuity? They guarantee regular payments, usually after retirement. In any case, every investment has counterparty risk. Bonds guarantee payout, but the issuer could always default. This is why Treasury bonds have the lowest yields, the Treasury is the world's most trusted borrower. It's also why \"\"junk\"\" bonds have higher yields than investment grade and partially why longer duration bonds have higher yields. As mentioned, there's bank accounts, which gain interest and are insured by FDIC up to $250,000. If the bank folds, they'll be acquired by another and your account balance will simply transfer. Similar to bank accounts are money market funds. These are funds that purchase very short term \"\"paper\"\" (basically <90 day bonds). They maintain a share price of $1 and pay interest in the form of additional shares. These have the risk of \"\"breaking the buck\"\" where they need to sell assets at a loss to meet investor withdrawal demands and NAV drops below $1.00. Fortunately, that's a super rare occurance, but still definitely possible. Finally, there's one guy I've seen on TV pitching a no risk high yield investment. I can't remember the firm, but I am waiting to see them shut down for running a ponzi scheme.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cbde01cf5e466b8f1a6ee6fca714dfb", "text": "US government bonds are where money goes when the markets are turbulent and investors are fleeing from risk, and that applies even if the risk is a downgrade of the US credit rating, because there's simply nowhere else to put your money if you're in search of safety. Most AAA-rated governments have good credit ratings because they don't borrow much money (and most of them also have fairly small economies compared with the US), meaning that there's poor liquidity in their scarce bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d061afb0577cd1166e1f687175edde2", "text": "I let someone else pick and chose which junk bonds to buy and which to sell. So instead of holding individual bonds in my portfolio I hold an ETF that is managed by a man with a PHD and which buys junk bonds. I get a yearly 15.5% ROI, paid monthly. Buy and hold and you can get a good return for the rest of your life. It is only speculation when you sell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d74d072a1b281065cca99b85f28e004", "text": "[] [Fitch Ratings is expecting China's first local government bond defaults, but timing uncertain] (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/25/fitch-ratings-is-expecting-chinas-first-local-government-bond-defaults-but-timing-uncertain.html) [] [China LGFVs: fears mount of bond defaults] (http://www.financeasia.com/News/439998,china-lgfvs-fears-mount-of-bond-defaults.aspx) [][Growing Chinese corporate bond defaults improve market transparency but could scare investors] (https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/25/growing-chinese-corporate-bond-defaults-improve-market-transparency-but-could-scare-investors.html) [][Why are Chinese bond defaults surging?] (https://www.breakingviews.com/features/breakdown-why-are-chinese-bond-defaults-surging/)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db66fcbc02aaeae3f5d45af4edbf187c", "text": "\"MBS is a fairly general term \"\"Mortgage Backed Securities\"\" which simply means that the bond is collateralized with mortgages. Pass throughs are a type of MBS that is untranched: all bond holders of the deal are receiving the same interest and principal payments, there is no senior or subordinate class of bonds. Agency passthroughs bond holders receive any principal and interest payments paid by the loans in the pool, minus a slice of the interest payment that pays billing and insurance fees (servicing and guarantee fees, usually a .5% slice of the mortgage interest rate). On agency product (including Ginnies), if a loan defaults it will be bought out of the pool, with the bondholder receiving all of the expected principal and any interest due on the loan. Agency deals with different classes of bonds are usually called REMICs. Passthrough may also be split into principal-only (PO) and interest-only (IO) pieces. There is also a huge forward market in soon-to-be-issued passthroughs called the TBA market. Ginnie Mae has two slightly different programs referred to as Ginnie I and Ginnie II. Ginnie also has commercial and construction loan financial products. Freddie and Fannie have the same type of financial products as Ginnie, but there are differences in the sort of loans that Ginnie has vs the other agencies, as well as subtle minor differences between the contract terms of the securities. Ginnie is also more explicitly guaranteed by the federal government. You may want to look at: http://www.ginniemae.gov/index.asp (especially the \"\"For Investors\"\" and \"\"For Issuers\"\" sections.) Wikipedia's MBS may be more clear than my description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security#Types\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af78c4c4186788dd4ac2f120b3c02a17", "text": "Bonds are extremely illiquid and have traditionally traded in bulk. This has changed in recent years, but bonds used to be traded all by humans not too long ago. Currently, price data is all proprietary. Prices are reported to the usual data terminals such as Bloomberg, Reuters, etc, but brokers may also have price gathering tools and of course their own internal trade history. Bonds are so illiquid that comparable bonds are usually referenced for a bond's price history. This can be done because non-junk bonds are typically well-rated and consistent across ratings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3bae8e3b801de953c6ba778740f8d5c", "text": "\"you want more information on what? The general bond market? This article is getting at something different, but the first several pages are general background info on the corporate bond market. http://home.business.utah.edu/hank.bessembinder/publications/transparencyandbondmarket.pdf If you are trying to relate somehow the issue of federal debt ( a la treasuries) to corporate debt you will find that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions. Debt is not exactly currency, only the promise of repayment at a certain date in the future. The only reason that U.S. treasuries ( and those of certain other highly rated countries ) is interchangeable is because they are both very liquid and have very low risk. There is very little similarity to this in the corporate bond market. Companies are no where near to the risk level of a government (for one they can't print their own money) and when a corporation goes bankrupt it's bondholder are usually s.o.l (recovery rates hover at around 50% of the notional debt amount). This is why investors demand a premium to hold corporate debt. Now consider even the best of companies, (take IBM ) the spread between the interest the government must pay on a treasury bond and that which IBM must pay on a similar bond is still relatively large. But beyond that you run into a liquidity issue. Currency only works because it is highly liquid. If you take the article about Greece you posted above, you can see the problem generated by lack of liquidity. People have to both have currency and be willing to accept currency for trade to occur. Corporate bond are notoriously illiquid because people are unwilling to take on the risk involved with holding the debt (there are other reasons, but I'm abstracting from them). This is the other reason treasuries can be used as \"\"currency\"\" there is always someone willing to take your treasury in trade (for the most part because there is almost zero risk involved). You would always be much more willing to hold a treasury than an equivalent IBM bond. Now take that idea down to a smaller level. Who would want to buy the bonds issued by the mom and pop down the street? Even if someone did buy them who would in turn take these bonds in trade? Practically speaking: no one would. They have no way to identify the riskiness of the bond and have no assurance that there would be anyone willing to trade for it in the future. If you read the whole post by the redditor from your first link this is precisely why government backed currency came about, and why the scenario that I think you are positing is very unlikely.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34665581461e0a8d5d33457ae25d7895", "text": "The question in my view is going into Opinion and economics. Why would I buy a bond with a negative yield? I guess you have answered yourself; Although the second point is more relevant for high net worth individual or large financial institutions / Governments where preserving cash is an important consideration. Currently quite a few Govt Bonds are in negative as most Govt want to encourage spending in an effort to revive economy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "238acb579177dbbd1370975042f0620f", "text": "Usually Bonds are used to raised capital when a lender doesn't want to take on sole risk of lending. If you are looking at raising anything below 10m bonds are not a option because the bank will just extend you a line of credit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14cee9078b37b49a75d3694d935e28bd", "text": "And this is bad why? What is the total funding? What is the total return? Do you have the necessary facts to evaluate this? Basing opinions on partial evidence makes poor public policy. Most municipal bonds might actually work out for the better good of communities. Certainly the total amount of bonds listed as going bad in this story is a tiny, tiny fraction of total bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25cf528cb594ac69f21ac7cc0cf0ab5d", "text": "The assumption that bonds have been issued with a negative coupon is not correct, or at least is has not occurred thus far. We'll look at this future possibility in the final paragraph. For now, lets look at the current bond market. The issuance of government bonds which carry a negative gross redemption yield is the result of governments issuing bonds at an issue price which exceed the nominal/redemption price and any coupon yield receivable over the life of the bond. I can find no instances of bonds with a negative coupon, though many have tiny positive coupon yields. The short seller of a bond with a negative gross redemption yield will be liable to pay the buyer the interest amount determined by the coupon. If the short seller has borrowed the bonds in order to sell them, then the short seller will receive the interest due from the lender to offset the interest paid to the buyer. If the short seller has not borrowed the bonds, but has sold them using some sort of synthetic contract such as a Contract for Difference, then the short seller will pay the coupon without receiving any offsetting payment. I thought this was an interesting question and it will be interesting to see if, at some time in the future, governments do ever issue bonds with a negative coupon. To date, this does not appear to have happened. So what would happen if we assume that a government issues a bond with a negative coupon. The buyer of the bond would be required to pay the equivalent yield to the government according to the bond contract specification. If an investor sells short such a bond, they would then become entitled to receive the interest from the buyer. If they have borrowed the bonds in order to sell them short, then they would pay any interest received back to the lender - this chain should eventually end with the ultimate owner/lender paying the government their dues. If they have sold short using a synthetic contract, then presumably they would keep the interest from themselves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b67743cb4e5d07b3227567e526be37de", "text": "\"The interest rate offered by a bond is called the nominal interest rate. The so-called real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the rate of inflation. If inflation is equal to or greater than the nominal rate at any given time, the REAL interest rate is zero or negative. We're talking about a ten year bond. It's possible for the real interest rate to be negative for one or two years of the bond's life, and positive for eight or nine. On the other hand, if we have a period of rising inflation, as in the 1970s, the inflation rate will exceed the (original) interest rate in most years, meaning that the real interest rate on the ten year bond will be negative over its whole life. People lost \"\"serious\"\" money on bonds (and loans) in the 1970s. In such situations, the BORROWERS make out. That is, they borrow money at low rates, earn inflation (plus a little more) pay back inflated dollars, and pocket the difference. For them, the money is \"\"free.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c819a504e498ac7204871e2015cb07e", "text": "You stumbled on your second paragraph when you said gold is debt. It's not. It is an asset you can hold in your hand that has zero counterparty risk. Didn't read the rest because if you fell over so early, it's likely I'd be here all day correcting the rest of it.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
cd649bcb148fa8f709d6637ffb46d03b	When do companies typically announce stock splits?	[ { "docid": "7a6b5f599fdd0155ee34a22680b70787", "text": "\"In 2005, Apple announced a split on Feb 11... CUPERTINO, California — February 11, 2005 — Apple® announced today that its Board of Directors has approved a two-for-one split of the Company’s common stock and a proportional increase in the number of Apple common shares authorized from 900 million to 1.8 billion. Each shareholder of record at the close of business on February 18, 2005 will receive one additional share for every outstanding share held on the record date, and trading will begin on a split-adjusted basis on February 28, 2005. ...one month after announcing earnings. CUPERTINO, California—January 12, 2005—Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2005 first quarter ended December 25, 2004. For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $295 million, or $.70 per diluted share. These results compare to a net profit of $63 million, or $.17 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Revenue for the quarter was $3.49 billion, up 74 percent from the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 28.5 percent, up from 26.7 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 41 percent of the quarter’s revenue. I wouldn't expect Apple to offer another split, as it's become somewhat fashionable among tech companies to have high stock prices (see GOOG or NFLX or even BRK-A/BRK-B). Additionally, as a split does nothing to the underlying value of the company, it shouldn't affect your decision to purchase AAPL. (That said, it may change the perception of a stock as \"\"cheap\"\" or \"\"expensive\"\" per human psychology). So, to answer your question: companies will usually announce a stock split after releasing their financial results for the preceding fiscal year. Regardless of results, though, splits happen when the board decides it is advantageous to the company to split its stocks.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "13d5c8d1757f4113f3d00149c7023f95", "text": "Companies do both quite often. They have opposite effects on the share price, but not on the total value to the shareholders. Doing both causes value to shareholders to rise (ie, any un-bought back shares now own a larger percentage of the company and are worth more) and drops the per-share price (so it is easier to buy a share of the stock). To some that's irrelevant, but some might want a share of an otherwise-expensive stock without paying $700 for it. As a specific example of this, Apple (APPL) split its stock in 2014 and also continued a significant buyback program: Apple announces $17B repurchase program, Oct 2014 Apple stock splits 7-to-1 in June 2014. This led to their stock in total being worth more, but costing substantially less per share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "847ec3502d4bba1350c0a140e560d07c", "text": "Yes, there is a delay between when you buy a stock and when you actually take ownership of it. This is called the settlement period. The settlement period for US equities is T+2 (other markets have different settlement periods), meaning you don't actually become a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you buy. Conversely, you don't stop being a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you sell. Presumably at some point in the (far) future all public markets will move to same-day changes of ownership, at which point companies will stop making announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd and will switch to announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd at 13:00 UTC", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e861e14d3c7e57344f7ab5c34eb4a717", "text": "There has been a lot of research on the effects of stock splits. Some studies have concluded that: However note that (i) these are averages over large samples and does not say it will work on every split and (ii) most of the research is a bit dated and more recent papers have often struggled to find any significant performance impact after 1990, possibly because the effect has been well documented and the arbitrage no longer exists. This document summarises the existing research on the subject although it seems to miss some of the more recent papers. More practically, if you pay a commission per share, you will pay more commissions after the split than before. Bottom line: don't overthink it and focus on other criteria to decide when/whether to invest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76320099a37d8f9f9b4281d18080ef8b", "text": "Simple: Do a stock split. Each 1 Ordinary share now = 100 Ordinary shares (or 100,000 or whatever you choose). Then sell 20 (or 20,000) of them to your third party. (Stock splits are fairly routine occurrence. Apple for example has done several, most recently in 2014 when 1 share = 7 shares). Alternatively you could go the route of creating a new share class with different rights, preferences etc. But this is more complicated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16b63e18f2e95db3e1bdd38ff0c20108", "text": "You can use Yahoo! Finance to pull this information in my use. It is listed under Key Statistics -> Dividends & Splits. For example here is Exxon Mobile (XOM): Dividend Payout Information", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd99ef5267bc2cb10f23ee1f62bc9f82", "text": "I've never seen a dividend, split or other corporate action during the day, but I have seen trade suspended a few times when something big happened. The market opening price is not in general the same as the close of the previous day. It can gap up or down and does frequently. I don't know of an api to find out if the dividend was cash or stock, but stock dividends are a lot less common.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "177520afa3ba3c94f80b068568d73cc0", "text": "\"Note that we do not comment on specific stocks here, and have no place doing so. If your question is only about that specific stock then it is off topic. I have not tried to answer that part below. The key to valuation is predicting the net present value of all of a company's cash flows; i.e. of their future profits and losses. Through a number of methods to long to explain here investment banks and hedge funds work out what they expect the company's cash flows to be and trade so that these future profits, losses etc. are priced into the stock price. Since future cash flows, profits or whatever you want to call them are priced in, the price of a stock shouldn't move at all on an earnings statement. This begs the question \"\"why do some stock prices move violently when they announce earnings?\"\" The models that the institutional investors use are not perfect and cannot take into account everything. An unexpected craze for a product or a supply chain agreement breaking down on not being as good as it seems will not be factored into this pricing and so the price will move based on the degree to which expectation is missed or exceeded. Since penny socks are speculative their value is based far more on the long term expected cash flows and less on the short run cash flows. This goes a long way to explaining why some of the highest market capitalisation penny stocks are those making consistent losses. This means that they can be far less susceptible to price movements after an earnings announcement even if it is well out of the consensus range. Higher (potential) future value comes with the higher risks of penny stocks which discounts current value. In the end if people's expectation of the company's performance reflects reality then the profitability is priced in and there will be no price movement. If the actuality is outside of the expected range then there will be a price movement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fba69109c372ce3a7f882968dd7b3e36", "text": "Note that your link shows the shares as of March 31, 2016 while http://uniselect.com/content/files/Press-release/Press-Release-Q1-2016-Final.pdf notes a 2-for-1 stock split so thus you have to double the shares to get the proper number is what you are missing. The stock split occurred in May and thus is after the deadline that you quoted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0340e55ae44f6f61d356c797d8a3d9be", "text": "It means a 3% return on the value of the stock. If a stock has a $10 share price, the dividend would be $0.30. Normally though, the dividends are announced as a fixed amount per share, because the share price fluctuates. If a percentage were announced, then the final cost would not be known as the share priced could change radically before the dividend date.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1e0b52faea7370ea2b0a4b35a7a7269", "text": "Investopedia has a good definition. Stock dividends are similar to cash dividends; however, instead of cash, a company pays out stock. Stock splits occur when a company perceives that its stock price may be too high. Stock splits are usually done to increase the liquidity of the stock (more shares outstanding) and to make it more affordable for investors to buy regular lots (a regular lot = 100 shares).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2355711bff861b12e2713816121c028b", "text": "\"I can't speak authoritatively to your broader question about stocks in general, but in several years tracking AAPL closely, I can tell you that there's little apparent pattern to when their earnings call will be, or when it will be announced. What little I do know: - AAPL's calls tend to occur on a Tuesday more than any other day of the week - it's announced roughly a month in advance, but has been announced w/ less notice - it has a definite range of dates in which it occurs, typically somewhere in the 3rd week of the new quarter plus or minus a few days More broadly for #1: Given the underlying nature of what an option is, then yes, the day an earnings call date is announced could certainly influence the IV/price of options - but only for options that expire inside the \"\"grey area\"\" (~2 weeks long) window in which the call could potentially occur. Options expiring outside that grey area should experience little to no price change in reaction to the announcement of the date - unless the date was itself surprising, e.g. an earlier date would increase the premium on earlier dated options, a later date would increase the premium for later-dated options. As for #2: The exact date will probably always be a mystery, but the main factors are: - the historical pattern of earnings call dates (and announcements of those dates) which you can look up for any given company - when the company's quarter ends - potentially some influence in how long it takes the company to close out their books for the quarter (some types of businesses would be faster than others) - any special considerations for this particular quarter that affect reporting ability And finally: - a surprise of an earnings call occurring (substantively) later than usual is rarely going to be a good sign for the underlying security, and the expectation of catastrophe - while cratering the underlying - may also cause a disproportionate rise in IVs/prices due to fear\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8b5c6c2466ff3fa1b44e11fd7d270ef", "text": "No, I think you are misunderstanding the Math. Stock splits are a way to control relatively where the price per share can be for a company as companies can split or reverse split shares which would be similar to taking dimes and giving 2 nickels for each dime, each is 10 cents but the number of coins has varied. This doesn't create any additional value since it is still 10 cents whether it is 1 dime or 2 nickels. Share repurchase programs though are done to prevent dilution as executives and those with incentive-stock options may get shares in the company that increase the number of outstanding shares that would be something to note.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3bc5cd80d97731d8f630a72883bf707", "text": "To make you happy. The thing is, if they split 10 for 1, its still the exact same value in total. There are just more shares that are worth 35 instead of 350each. You need to know things like how many shares there are <the float> how rapidly the company is growing. If it has earnings at all and how much. There is a lot more to the value of a company than the price of the stock alone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a94a1e65b2db8127bd4c8dec7cc095b6", "text": "The reason to do a stock split is to get the price of the stock down to an affordable range. If your stock costs $100,000 per share, you are seriously cutting in to the number of people who can afford to buy it. I can think of two reasons NOT to do a stock split. The biggest is, Why bother? If your stock is trading at a reasonable price, why change anything? It takes time and effort, which equals money, to do a stock split. If this serves no purpose, you're just wasting that effort. The other reason is that you don't want to drive your stock price down too low. Low prices are normally associated with highly speculative start-up companies, and so can give a wrong impression of your company. Also, low prices make it difficult for the price to reflect small changes. If your stock is trading at $10.00, a 1/2 of 1% change is 5 cents. But if it's trading at $1.50, a 1/2 of 1% change is a fraction of a penny. Does it go up by that penny or not? You've turned a smooth scale into a series of hurdles.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16b8b7de9304dbd8cc5d377e97780409", "text": "\"There are two common types of P/E ratio calculations: \"\"trailing\"\" and \"\"forward\"\" (and then there are various mixes of the two). Trailing P/E ratios are calculated as [current price] / [trailing 12-month EPS]. An alternative is the Forward P/E ratio, which is based on an estimate of earnings in the coming 12 months. The estimate used is usually called \"\"consensus\"\" and, to answer your question, is the average estimate of analysts who cover the stock. Any reputable organization will disclose how they calculate their financials. For example, Reuters uses a trailing ratio (indicated by \"\"TTM\"\") on their page for BHP. So, the first reason a PE ratio might not jump on an announcement is it might be forward looking and therefore not very sensitive to the realized earnings. The second reason is that if it is a trailing ratio, some of the annual EPS change is known prior to the annual announcement. For example, on 12/31 a company might report a large drop in annual earnings, but if the bulk of that loss was reported in a previous quarterly report, then the trailing EPS would account partially for it prior to the annual announcement. In this case, I think the first reason is the culprit. The Reuters P/E of nearly 12 is a trailing ratio, so if you see 8 I'd think it must be based on a forward-looking estimate.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
82523f4d413c756cb1c0f076be0d20f3	Precious metal trading a couple questions	[ { "docid": "16d2dbc7eed8d201c0d4dcbccae79fcd", "text": "\"Limited Price is probably equivalent to the current par value of a \"\"limit order\"\". Markets move fast, and if the commodity is seeing some volatility in the buy and sell prices, if you place an ordinary buy order you may not get the price you were quoted. A \"\"limit order\"\" tells your broker or whomever or whatever is making the order on your behalf that you will pay no more than X yuan. While the market is below that price, the trader will attempt to get you the quantity you want, but if they can't get you your full order for an average price less than the limit, the whole thing is rolled back. You can set a limit at any price, but a limit order of 1 yuan for a pound of sterling silver will likely never be executed as long as the market itself is functioning. So, you are being provided with a \"\"par value\"\" that they can guarantee will be executed in the current market. Entrustment prices are probably prices offered to the managers of trust funds. A trust is simply a set of securities and/or cash which is placed under the nominal control of a third party, who then must in good faith attempt to fulfill the goals of the actual owner of the securities with regards to growth or retention of value. Trustees almost never speculate with the money they control, but when they do move money it's often a sizeble chunk (hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars instead of a few thousand dollars here and there). So, in return for the long-term holdings, large buys and sells, and thus the reduced cost of maintaining a business relationship with the broker, the broker may offer better prices to trust fund managers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21f3c534c3679bc20aad8e5a3dbfb959", "text": "\"Correcting Keith's answer (you should have read about these details in the terms and conditions of your bank/broker): Entrustment orders are like a \"\"soft\"\" limit order and meaningless without a validity (which is typically between 1 and 5 days). If you buy silver at an entrustment price above market price, say x when the market offer is m, then parts of your order will likely be filled at the market price. For the remaining quantity there is now a limit, the bank/broker might fill your order over the next 5 days (or however long the validity is) at various prices, such that the overall average price does not exceed x. This is different to a limit order, as it allows the bank/broker to (partially) buy silver at higher prices than x as long as the overall averages is x or less. In a limit set-up you might be (partially) filled at market prices first, but if the market moves above x the bank/broker will not fill any remaining quantities of your order, so you might end up (after a day or 5 days) with a partially filled order. Also note that an entrustment price below the market price and with a short enough validity behaves like a limit price. The 4th order type is sort of an opposite-side limit price: A stop-buy means buy when the market offer quote goes above a certain price, a stop-sell means sell when the market bid quote goes below a certain price. Paired with the entrusment principle, this might mean that you buy/sell on average above/below the price you give. I don't know how big your orders are or will be but always keep in mind that not all of your order might be filled immediately, a so-called partial fill. This is particularly noteworthy when you're in a pro-rata market.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "afafec3ae79fa797fcb2e00de3988080", "text": "For reporting purposes, I would treat the purchase and sale of gold like a purchase and sale of a stock. The place to do so is Schedule D. (And if it's the wrong form, but you reported it, there is might not be a penalty, whereas there is a penalty for NOT reporting.) The long term gain would be at capital gains rates. The short term gain would be at ordinary income rates. And if you have two coins bought at two different times, you get to choose which one to report (as long as you report the OTHER one when you sell the second coin).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9029976ff589cc052640becf6f9a3414", "text": "@fennec is right, no one knows. Here's a link that may help: http://pragcap.com/silver-prices-display-some-bubbly-characteristics I don't follow markets enough to comment, but I have read enough of Cullen's stuff to know he's not off his rocker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90dfc0db81605a307939ab82a25f7f97", "text": "A simple example - When looking at oil trading in different locations first I have some back of the envelop adjustments for the grade of oil, then look at storage costs (irrelevant in the case of electricity) and transport costs between two locations to see if physical players are actively arbing the spread. No strong views on reading material in this specific area - Google, google scholar and amazon all have relevant material. When it comes to your current problem, here are some questions to think about: 1. Is the power generated from the same commodity at location A and location W? 2. How has the spread changed in the past? Has trading location W actively hedged the worst cases of prices moves in location A? 3. Is it feasible to trade the commodity that location A generates the majority of its power from/how does that compare to electricity trading at location W as a hedge? 4. If hedging is really desirable, are you sure you can't do an illiquid over the counter hedge at location A? Paying a little bit more in the bid/ask for the hedge could be more desirable than trying to jump into a market you yourselves don't quite understand. 5. If your consultants come back with just some hedge ratios without discussing what drives the spreads between the two locations and where the spreads are currently be skeptical.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "733e75097f448c8e81b0e9c92437dff1", "text": "> and you can't buy anything with them not true at all. gold converts to ANY/EVERY currency in the world look, I don't care what you do. your question was how to make $500 into more. my answer is one answer. but I encourage you to [follow the price of gold and silver](http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/gold/) from time to time (weekly?) to see the path I predicted here are two videos to help you learn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvBCDS-y8vc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRphHg87uSc", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10f1f5163224b18743d6c5c8c3dbfd22", "text": "December, 7, 2011 ( 01:50 pm) :- Bullion are sparked at the late or and session of MCX & Comex. USA investors are not worried about the coming events because European leaders signals that IMF providing help for European countries who are facing financial crisis. Crude oil momentum also range bound whole day, a rising tension on the Iran exports resistance will trigger oil prices will at new high. Silver have strong resistance at $ 33.20 above this level it's trend bullish under this its trend totally down. Gold have strong resistance at $ 1742 above this trend totally bullish side & unless its in down trend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76f805fba133d2272947714245b4c446", "text": "As the value of a currency declines, commodities, priced in that currency, will rise. The two best commodities to see a change in would be oil and gold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cbbb07f0be0ceda1705c96158f0c51d", "text": "The price action is... untradeable. You have money flying in and out of trades without reason. Apple down? Then amzn goes up as tech trader cash tries to find a new trend. But trends are not materializing. There is no consensus between the news, trends the technical indicators, money managers... Just stay clear till the dust settles. Us dollars should be ok. Gold isnt even that reliable as qe3 is not certain. I think everything is heafing down en mass in the market but there is residual lunatic optimisim out there making shorts dangerous. I guess you could sell the highs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d44654282465ebd3ebad8d3665381e99", "text": "If #2 is how it really worked I would approve. In the real world, entities who have the money to purchase access have systems which are in a position to execute strategies which shave pennies of of people who want to make real trades. I want to sell for $61.15 and someone wants to buy for $61.10 and the HFT traders force both hands and make their money on that nickel in between us.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bad177efac3dfd6b41b35d802005ab10", "text": "Without getting into whether you should invest in Gold or Not ... 1.Where do I go and make this purchase. I would like to get the best possible price. If you are talking about Physical Gold then Banks, Leading Jewelry store in your city. Other options are buying Gold Mutual Fund or ETF from leading fund houses. 2.How do I assure myself of quality. Is there some certificate of quality/purity? This is mostly on trust. Generally Banks and leading Jewelry stores will not sell of inferior purity. There are certain branded stores that give you certificate of authenticity 3.When I do choose to sell this commodity, when and where will I get the best cost? If you are talking about selling physical gold, Jewelry store is the only place. Banks do not buy back the gold they sold you. Jewelry stores will buy back any gold, however note there is a buy price and sell price. So if you buy 10 g and sell it back immediately you will not get the same price. If you have purchased Mutual Funds / ETF you can sell in the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca0fd39e8414dd94c6d787fd00e425f7", "text": "Taking into account your POV I would recommend mostly goods that will be harder to obtain, precious metals (not only gold) and forex (although the forex aproach depends on some other country not having troubles with it's own economy which in a world as interconnected as ours by internet and all the new technologies doesn't seem likely) i highly recommend silver which is cheaper than gold and is stable enough in the long term", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37a1e67549592b0ff3bda0dcc97552a7", "text": "I don't know answers that would be specific to Canada but one of the main ETF funds that tracks gold prices is GLD (SPDR Gold Trust) another is IAU (iShares Gold Trust). Also, there are several ETF's that combine different precious metals together and can be traded. You can find a fairly decent list here on the Stock Encylopedia site.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc23dc0b3a9f674b1d90cdb84f98052a", "text": "This was such a wonderful and clear explanation. It has helped me to understand (at 28) a concept that I have always been a bit murky on. I would feel safe making the bet that you are a teacher of some sort. I would find it extremely interesting to hear you thoughts on why we don't use the gold standard anymore. Do you work in finance?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab8e2c4f62e90b429e52348b090e65d3", "text": "\"First of all, metals are commodities. So if you're phrasing that as metals and/or commodities, then that's poorly worded. If you're phrasing that as \"\"metal commodity reports\"\" then say as such. Second, and more importantly: what commodities? Power is very different than coffee. Different places specialize in different things, all banks are good in some and weak in others. There's no generic \"\"commodity\"\" market but rather a huge range of specifically different products traded in the future.You learn more than a small fraction of this universe so pick one or two specific products from the macro buckets (i.e. energy, grains, metals) and focus on those.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "746d30780fa07283fd88a34f75d85c8b", "text": "In 2008, 10 year treasuries were up 20.1%, to gold's 4.96%. Respectfully, if I were certain if a market drop, I'd just short the market, easily done by shorting SPY or other index ETFs. If you wish to buy gold, the easiest and least expensive way is to buy an ETF, GLD to be specific. It trades like a stock, for what that's worth. There are those who would suggest this is not like buying gold, it's just 'paper'. I believe otherwise. It's a non leveraged, fully backed ETF. I try not to question other's political or religious beliefs or as it pertains to this ETF, their conspiracy theories.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5819b1b16bb5a329fb87dea149f8148b", "text": "Goldprice.org has different currencies and historical data. I think silverprice.org also has historical data.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
00a5f9d78e55c2aef44aded75a1e8f0b	How does a high share price benefit a company when it is raising funds?	[ { "docid": "651f0068eeb897a2615880fe252207ee", "text": "\"In an IPO (initial public offering) or APO (additional public offering) situation, a small group of stakeholders (as few as one) basically decide to offer an additional number of \"\"shares\"\" of equity in the company. Usually, these \"\"shares\"\" are all equal; if you own one share you own a percentage of the company equal to that of anyone else who owns one share. The sum total of all shares, theoretically, equals the entire value of the company, and so with N shares in existence, one share is equivalent to 1/Nth the company, and entitles you to 1/Nth of the profits of the company, and more importantly to some, gives you a vote in company matters which carries a weight of 1/Nth of the entire shareholder body. Now, not all of these shares are public. Most companies have the majority (51%+) of shares owned by a small number of \"\"controlling interests\"\". These entities, usually founding owners or their families, may be prohibited by agreement from selling their shares on the open market (other controlling interests have right of first refusal). For \"\"private\"\" companies, ALL the shares are divided this way. For \"\"public\"\" companies, the remainder is available on the open market, and those shares can be bought and sold without involvement by the company. Buyers can't buy more shares than are available on the entire market. Now, when a company wants to make more money, a high share price at the time of the issue is always good, for two reasons. First, the company only makes money on the initial sale of a share of stock; once it's in a third party's hands, any profit from further sale of the stock goes to the seller, not the company. So, it does little good to the company for its share price to soar a month after its issue; the company's already made its money from selling the stock. If the company knew that its shares would be in higher demand in a month, it should have waited, because it could have raised the same amount of money by selling fewer shares. Second, the price of a stock is based on its demand in the market, and a key component of that is scarcity; the fewer shares of a company that are available, the more they'll cost. When a company issues more stock, there's more shares available, so people can get all they want and the demand drops, taking the share price with it. When there's more shares, each share (being a smaller percentage of the company) earns less in dividends as well, which figures into several key metrics for determining whether to buy or sell stock, like earnings per share and price/earnings ratio. Now, you also asked about \"\"dilution\"\". That's pretty straightforward. By adding more shares of stock to the overall pool, you increase that denominator; each share becomes a smaller percentage of the company. The \"\"privately-held\"\" stocks are reduced in the same way. The problem with simply adding stocks to the open market, getting their initial purchase price, is that a larger overall percentage of the company is now on the open market, meaning the \"\"controlling interests\"\" have less control of their company. If at any time the majority of shares are not owned by the controlling interests, then even if they all agree to vote a certain way (for instance, whether or not to merge assets with another company) another entity could buy all the public shares (or convince all existing public shareholders of their point of view) and overrule them. There are various ways to avoid this. The most common is to issue multiple types of stock. Typically, \"\"common\"\" stock carries equal voting rights and equal shares of profits. \"\"Preferred stock\"\" typically trades a higher share of earnings for no voting rights. A company may therefore keep all the \"\"common\"\" stock in private hands and offer only preferred stock on the market. There are other ways to \"\"class\"\" stocks, most of which have a similar tradeoff between earnings percentage and voting percentage (typically by balancing these two you normalize the price of stocks; if one stock had better dividends and more voting weight than another, the other stock would be near-worthless), but companies may create and issue \"\"superstock\"\" to controlling interests to guarantee both profits and control. You'll never see a \"\"superstock\"\" on the open market; where they exist, they are very closely held. But, if a company issues \"\"superstock\"\", the market will see that and the price of their publicly-available \"\"common stock\"\" will depreciate sharply. Another common way to increase market cap without diluting shares is simply to create more shares than you issue publicly; the remainder goes to the current controlling interests. When Facebook solicited outside investment (before it went public), that's basically what happened; the original founders were issued additional shares to maintain controlling interests (though not as significant), balancing the issue of new shares to the investors. The \"\"ideal\"\" form of this is a \"\"stock split\"\"; the company simply multiplies the number of shares it has outstanding by X, and issues X-1 additional shares to each current holder of one share. This effectively divides the price of one share by X, lowering the barrier to purchase a share and thus hopefully driving up demand for the shares overall by making it easier for the average Joe Investor to get their foot in the door. However, issuing shares to controlling interests increases the total number of shares available, decreasing the market value of public shares that much more and reducing the amount of money the company can make from the stock offering.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3cb4bef3b410bfdf6c5f591b47e88eb", "text": "A private company say has 100 shares with single owner Mr X, now it needs say 10,000/- to run the company, if they can get a price of say 1000 per share, then they just need to issue 10 additional shares, so now the total shares is 110 [100 older plus 10]. So now the owner's share in the company is around 91%. However if they can get a price of only Rs 200 per share, they need to create 50 more shares. So now the total shares is 150 [100 older plus 50]. So now Mr X's equity in his own company is down to 66%. While this may still be OK, if it continues and goes below 50%, there is chances that he [Original owner] will be thrown out", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1eebb6fe1711a3950d7b67ffa1a5a0a6", "text": "Well, if one share cost $100 and the company needs to raise $10000, then the company will issue 100 shares for that price. Right? However, say there's 100 shares out there now, then each share holder owns 1/100th of the company. Now the company will remain the same, but it's shared between 200 shareholders after the issuing of new shares. That means each share holder now owns 1/200th of the company. And hence only gets 1/200th of their earnings etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "988f4fdae97c5b24d1cf1782f317b3d1", "text": "\"Share price is based on demand. Assuming the same amount of shares are made available for trade then stocks with a higher demand will have a higher price. So say a company has 1000 shares in total and that company needs to raise $100. They decide to sell 100 shares for $1 to raise their $100. If there is demand for 100 shares for at least $1 then they achieve their goal. But if the market decides the shares in this company are only worth 50 cents then the company only raises $50. So where do they get the other $50 they needed? Well one option is to sell another 100 shares. The dilution comes about because in the first scenario the company retains ownership of 900 or 90% of the equity. In the second scenario it retains ownership of only 800 shares or 80% of the equity. The benefit to the company and shareholders of a higher price is basically just math. Any multiple of shares times a higher price means there is more value to owning those shares. Therefore they can sell fewer shares to raise the same amount. A lot of starts up offer employees shares as part of their remuneration package because cash flow is typically tight when starting a new business. So if you're trying to attract the best and brightest it's easier to offer them shares if they are worth more than those of company with a similar opportunity down the road. Share price can also act as something of a credit score. In that a higher share price \"\"may\"\" reflect a more credit worthy company and therefore \"\"may\"\" make it easier for that company to obtain credit. All else being equal, it also makes it more expensive for a competitor to take over a company the higher the share price. So it can offer some defensive and offensive advantages. All ceteris paribus of course.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "37bf7229d625595c8ad96f6ebdc4c443", "text": "The idea here is to get an idea of how to value each business and thus normalize how highly prized is each dollar that a company makes. While some companies may make millions and others make billions, how does one put these in proper context? One way is to consider a dollar in earnings for the company. How does a dollar in earnings for Google compare to a dollar for Coca-cola for example? Some companies may be valued much higher than others and this is a way to see that as share price alone can be rather misleading since some companies can have millions of shares outstanding and split the shares to keep the share price in a certain range. Thus the idea isn't that an investor is paying for a dollar of earnings but rather how is that perceived as some companies may not have earnings and yet still be traded as start-ups and other companies may be running at a loss and thus the P/E isn't even meaningful in this case. Assuming everything but the P/E is the same, the lower P/E would represent a greater value in a sense, yes. However, earnings growth rate can account for higher P/Es for some companies as if a company is expected to grow at 40% for a few years it may have a higher P/E than a company growing earnings at 5% for example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04d4827d726ea7bf03eb32ae11d2012b", "text": "Typically in a developed / developing economy if there is high overall inflation, then it means everything will rise including property/real estate. The cost of funds is low [too much money chasing too few goods causes inflation] which means more companies borrow money cheaply and more business florish and hence the stock market should also go up. So if you are looking at a situation where industry is doing badly and the inflation is high, then it means there are larger issues. The best bet would be Gold and parking the funds into other currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "104d9230bb7c2710413f9a8b3498be85", "text": "\"If you participate in an IPO, you specify how many shares you're willing to buy and the maximum price you're willing to pay. All the investors who are actually sold the shares get them at the same price, and the entity managing the IPO will generally try to sell the shares for the highest price they can get. Whether or not you actually get the shares is a function of how many your broker gets and how your broker distributes them - which can be completely arbitrary if your broker feels like it. The price that the market is willing to pay afterward is usually a little higher. To a certain extent, this is by design: a good deal for the shares is an incentive for the big (million/billion-dollar) financiers who will take on a good bit of risk buying very large positions in the company (which they can't flip at the higher price, because they'd flood the market with their shares and send the price down). If the stock soars 100% and sticks around that level, though, the underwriting bank isn't doing its job very well: Investors were willing to give the company a lot more money. It's not \"\"stealing\"\", but it's definitely giving the original owners of the company a raw deal. (Just to be clear: it's the existing company's owners who suffer, not any third party.) Of course, LinkedIn was estimated to IPO at $30 before they hiked it to $45, and plenty of people were skeptical about it pricing so high even then, so it's not like they didn't try. And there's a variety of analysis out there about why it soared so much on the first day - fewer shares offered, wild speculative bubbles, no one could get a hold of it to short-sell, et cetera. They probably could have IPO'd for more, but it's unlikely there was, say, $120/share financing available: just because one sucker will pay the price doesn't mean you can move all 7.84 million IPO shares for it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5939f1d283af184f432800ab3ed5f171", "text": "Another benefit of holding shares longer was just pointed out in another question: donating appreciated shares to a nonprofit may avoid the capital gains tax on those shares, which is a bigger savings the more those shares have gone up since purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d133fdf8af7ed7e81a929aefa9fb736", "text": "The company gets it worth from how well it performs. For example if you buy company A for $50 a share and it beats its expected earnings, its price will raise and lets say after a year or two it can be worth around $70 or maybe more.This is where you can sell it and make more money than dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0abe3b53944868f98896299a54001c15", "text": "The purpose is to go public but also to generate more wealth. The real money comes when market values you at a price more than your cash flow. If a company brings in $1000 of cash flow, then that is what the employees and owners have to distribute among themselves. But if they are likely to increase to $2000 next and $4000 next year and they go public then the stock will do well. In this case, the promoters and employees with options/RSUs will benefit as well. The increased visibility is also very useful. Look at Google or FB. They didn't need the IPO proceed when they went public. They had enough cash from their business but then they would only have $1-10 billion a year. But due to the IPO their investors and employees have a huge net worth. Basically, with just a small % of shares in the public you can value the company at a high price valuing in the future cash flows (with a discount rate etc.). So instead of realizing the profit over the next 15 years, you get to enjoy it right away.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b152e7bee118585712db496fe8c45a9d", "text": "There are a few reason why share prices increase or decrease, the foremost is expectation of the investors that the company/economy will do well/not well, that is expectation of profit/intrinsic value growth over some time frame (1-4 qtrs.)there is also demand & supply mismatch over (usually) short time. If you really see, the actual 'value' of a company is it's net-worth (cash+asset+stock in trade+brand value+other intangibles+other incomes)/no of shares outstanding, which (in a way) is the book value, then all shares should trade at their book value, the actual number but it does not, the expectation of investors that a share would be purchased by another investor at a higher price because the outlook of the company over a long time is good.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db351fb142066f802e9dfed69b44acb6", "text": "In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9f9702bd2960149e3b61757d75adc00", "text": "After a company goes public, if it wants to raise more money, then it does this by secondary public offering or rights issue. In subscription rights issue gives the right to existing share holders to buy new shares at equal proportion. So if every one buys, they maintain the same percentage of ownership. Generally the pricing is at discount to current market price. Not sure why the price is high, unless the price for this stock fell sharply recently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c2ba8dba2f6f2b1e937ccfc001c4238", "text": "\"In some cases, when a company purchases a minor stake, they often intend to increase the size of the stake over time. As a reference, note that Coca Cola has increased their stake in Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) over time. It also adds some \"\"support\"\" to the price because these investors may be willing to step in and purchase the stock if there is any distress or poor performance. Finally, its generally a good \"\"tell\"\" that the stock has good things going for it and may be subject to additional interest from large investors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cdff41bc8fe9de657c5969883088d44", "text": "\"Buying pressure is when there are more buy orders than sell orders outstanding. Just because someone wants to buy a stock doesn't mean there's a seller ready to fill that order. When there's buying pressure, stock prices rise. When there's selling pressure, stock prices fall. There can be high volume where buying and selling are roughly equal, in which case share prices wouldn't move much. The market makers who actually fill buy and sell orders for stock will raise share prices in the face of buying pressure and lower them in the face of selling pressure. That's because they get to keep the margin between what they bought shares from a seller for and what they can sell them to a new buyer for. Here's an explanation from InvestorPlace.com about \"\"buying pressure\"\": Buying pressure can basically be defined as increasingly higher demand for a particular stock's shares. This demand for shares exceeds the supply and causes the price to rise. ... The strength or weakness of a stock determines how much buying or selling interest will be required to break support and resistance areas. I hope this helps!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67678b24e00d599afb2ad4f0fb52c905", "text": "\"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's \"\"goal\"\" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be. Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say \"\"this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest\"\". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cd4ebc007e5e4e0e0ffeb192ed4576b", "text": "Companies are expected to make a profit, otherwise there is no point to their existence and no motivation for investment. That profit comes back to shareholders as growth and/or dividend. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to turn back into investment to facilitate increased future earnings, it increases shareholder equity and share price. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to pay out in dividend, it makes the shares more attractive to investors which pushes the price up. Either way, shares go up. Share prices drop when companies lose money, or there are market disturbances affecting all companies (recessions), or when individual companies fail. Averaged over all companies over the long term (decades), stocks can be reasonably expected to go up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40f561f8209ce879f10e0cef32723d1f", "text": "Whatever the supply of labor and demand for labor set. If tomorrow suddenly the American economy took off, unemployment dropped to almost 0, Walmart would have to start raising wages in order to fill cashier slots. Does this mean that suddenly Walmart employees are giving more to Walmart? No, of course not, it just means the supply and demand of labor had radically changed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3c2a7eda895cea7c4aa4b482fc9f5e9", "text": "Hey desquinbnt & pontsone, I had an explanation written up about Share and Bond evaluation and in which, one share evaluation technique utilizes the P/E ratio - hence I explained it. Have a read, if you'd want me to go more in depth, let me know! :) http://letslearnfinance.net/2012/06/09/introduction-to-bonds-and-share-valuation/", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bbe5a1ce723f0adafc16ccd36cc415f2	Why could rental costs for apartments/houses rise while buying prices can go up and down?	[ { "docid": "6dd953cdb495b0fe033471e3f29e9827", "text": "I am from Australia, so my answer is based on my experience over here, however it should be similar for the USA. Generally, what determines both the price of houses/apartments and the rents for them is supply and demand. When there is high demand and low supply prices (or rents) generally go up. When there is low demand and high supply prices (or rents) usually go down. What can sometimes happen when house prices go down, is that the demand can drop but so can supply. As the prices drop, developers will make less money on building new houses, so stop building new houses. Other developers can go bankrupt. As less people (including investors) are buying houses, and more people (including investors) try to sell their existing houses, there will be more people looking to rent and less rental properties available to rent. This produces a perfect storm of high demand and low supply of rental properties, causing rents to rise strongly. When the property prices start to go up again as demand increases, there is a shortfall of new properties being built (due to the developers not building during the downturn). At this time developers start to build again but there is a lag time before the new houses can be completed. This lack of supply puts more pressure on both house prices and rents to go up further. Until equilibrium between supply and demand is realised or an oversupply of rental properties exists in the market, rents will continue to rise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f952adf47ba31e5de6363da2ea5a078", "text": "At 5%, this means you expect rents to double every 14 years. I bought a condo style apartment 28 years ago, (sold a while back, by the way) and recently saw the going rate for rents has moved up from $525 to $750, after all this time. The rent hasn't increased four fold. If rents appear to be too low compared to the cost of buying the house, people tend to prefer to rent. On the flip side, if the rent can cover a mortgage and then some, there's strong motivation to buy, if not by the renters, then by investors who seek a high return from renting those houses, thereby pushing the price up. The price to rent ratio isn't fixed, it depends in part on interest rates, consumer sentiment, and banks willingness to lend. Similar to stock's P/E, there can be quite a range, but too far in either direction is a sign a correction is due.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b91d9fa21e5371a5211d87591ab49f95", "text": "\"Average rent rates will typically rise and fall, and are market-dependent just like real estate. In the short term, a collapse in housing like the one we saw in 2008 can induce a spike in rental costs as people walk away or get foreclosed on, and move back into apartments. That then tends to self-adjust, as the people who had been in the apartments find a deal on a foreclosed house and move out. However, one thing I've seen to be near-constant in the apartment business is that a landlord will offer you a deal to get in, then increase the rent on you from year to year until you get fed up and move. This is a big reason I didn't have the same address for two years in a row until I bought my house. The landlord is basically betting that you won't want to deal with the hassle of moving, and so will pay the higher rent rate, even if, when you do the math, it makes more sense to move even to maintain the same rent rate. Eventually though, you do get fed up, look around, find the next good deal, and move, \"\"resetting\"\" your rent rate. I have never, not once in my life, seen or heard of any landlord offering a drop in rent as a \"\"loyalty\"\" move to keep you from going somewhere else. It's considered part of the game; retailers will price match, but most service providers (landlords, but also utility providers) expect a large amount of \"\"churn\"\" in their customer base as people shop around. It averages out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c478ce517a23b24c5fa2356c7eeac393", "text": "They are two different animals. When you rent you are purchasing a service. The landlord, as your service provider, has to make a profit, pay employees to do maintenance, and buy materials. The price of these things will increase with inflation, and that rolls into your rent price. Taxes also are passed to the tenant, and those tend to only go upward. Market forces of supply/demand will drive fluctuation of prices as well, as other posts have described. When you buy, you are purchasing just the asset - the home. This price will also be driven by supply/demand in the market, but don't try to compare it to buying a service. Cheers!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aca780c795d9f52a405b9d044e55a285", "text": "Economically, you would say that purchased and rented real estate are not perfect substitutes--they are largely separate markets. Only a few people are able to easily switch from one to the other and that choice is sticky--for example, once you buy a house, prices would have to rise a lot for it to be worth it to sell it and move into an apartment. In both markets there is a supply and demand curve, but the slope of the demand curve for houses to purchase is much steeper than the demand curve for rentals. The market for new housing fluctuates rapidly because it requires a large change in housing prices to change the number of people looking to buy a house. Most decisions to buy a house are not driven by the state of the housing market. This describes a supply/demand graph with a very steep demand curve. Additionally, because of the leverage provided by mortgages, the demand for houses depends critically on relatively small changes in the interest rate and availability of loans. Thus the steep demand curve shifts all over the place as borrowing conditions change. On the other hand, apartment prices are more stable because people easily move from one apartment to another and people living in their parent's basements easily move into apartments if prices change. A small change in the price or quantity of rentals brings about reasonable response in quantity demanded. This is the situation where the demand curve is shallow. In addition, rentals are not tied to interest rates tightly, nor are they as strongly tied to economic conditions (in a recession, people avoid buying but renters continue to rent).", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "48afeed212c2d44d7878e3a0f08b085b", "text": "\"I'd probably say \"\"buy\"\" for most situations. Unless you have a long-term lease, you're going to be saddled with elastic/rising rents if the market tightens up, while with a purchase you usually have fixed expenses (with the exception of property taxes/condo fees) and you are gaining equity. As I've gotten older, the prospect of moving is more and more daunting. The prospect of being essentially kicked out of my home when the landlord decides to sell the property or raise the rent is a turn-off to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4bf0dcb96ce68979ca1b604142bb2d7", "text": "\"Forget the math's specifics for a moment: here's some principles. Additional housing for a renter gives you returns in the form of money. Additional housing for yourself pays its returns in the form of \"\"here is a nice house, live in it\"\". Which do you need more of? If you don't need the money, get a nicer house for yourself. If you need (or want) the money, get a modest house for yourself and either use the other house as a rental property, or invest the proceeds of its sale in the stock market. But under normal circumstances (++) don't expect that buying more house for yourself is a good way to increase how much money you have. It's not. (++ the exception being during situations where land/housing value rises quickly, and when that rise is not part of a housing bubble which later collapses. Generally long-term housing values tend to be relatively stable; the real returns are from the rent, or what economists call imputed rent when you're occupying it yourself.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae2d662a10d85a9e6d215c22938140c8", "text": "People purchase homes and rent them instead of putting their money into other investment vehicles. This drives up property values and makes it more expensive to buy, which pushes more people into the rental market, making it more expensive to rent. If you lower the returns people make on their rental homes via increased property taxes, some percentage of those individuals would sell their extra homes and put their money into more lucrative investments. That would increase the number of homes on the market, lower those homes' price, and take people out of the rental market as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e45bc6febff4f515cef2d45ec46f69de", "text": "\"And specifically regarding prices of housing, what factors drive prices in that regard? I mean, the houses are roughly the same... but almost 3 times as expensive. Rent, like so many things, is tied to supply and demand. On the demand side, rent is tied to income. People tend to buy as much house as they can afford, given that mortgage interest is deductible and public schools, financed through property tax, performs better in valuable neighborhoods. Raise the minimum wage and economists expect rents to go up accordingly. When employers and pensions offer COLA adjustments, it feeds into a price loop. During the past ten years, there was also some \"\"animal spirits\"\" / irrational behavior present; people feared that if they didn't buy now, home prices would outpace their growth in income. So even though it didn't make sense at the time, they bought because it would make even less sense later (if you assume prices only go up). There's also the whole California has nicer weather angle to explain why people move to SF or LA. On the supply side, it's all about housing stock. In your old town, you could find vacant lots or farmland in less than 5 minute's drive from anywhere. There's far less room for growth in say, the SF Bay area or NYC. There's also building codes that restrict the growth in housing stock. I'm told Boulder, CO is one such place. You would think that high prices would discourage people from moving or working there, but between the university and the defense contractors triangle, they seem to have an iron grip on the market. (Have you ever seen a cartoon where a character gets a huge bill at a restaurant, and their eyes shoot out of their eye sockets and they faint? Yeah... that's how I felt looking at some of the places around here...) Remember, restaurants have to cover the same rent problem you do. And they have higher minimum wages, and taxes, etc. Moreover, food has to be imported from miles away to feed the city, likely even from out of state. In California, there's also food regulations that in effect raise the prices. If people are footing those higher bills, I wouldn't be surprised if they're racking up debt in the process, and dodging the collectors calling about their Lexus, or taking out home equity loans to cover their lifestyle.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04d4827d726ea7bf03eb32ae11d2012b", "text": "Typically in a developed / developing economy if there is high overall inflation, then it means everything will rise including property/real estate. The cost of funds is low [too much money chasing too few goods causes inflation] which means more companies borrow money cheaply and more business florish and hence the stock market should also go up. So if you are looking at a situation where industry is doing badly and the inflation is high, then it means there are larger issues. The best bet would be Gold and parking the funds into other currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8a00a0ac0f4aaa1ed206d89b155f190", "text": "Yes, it's a buyer's market. If one is looking to buy a house, comparing the cost to rent vs own is a start. Buying a property to rent to a stranger is a different issue altogether, it's a business like any other, it takes time and has risk. If today, one has a decent downpayment (20%) and plans to stay in the house for some time, buying may make economic sense. But it's never a no-brainer. One needs to understand that housing can go down as well as up, and also understand all the expenses of owning which aren't so obvious. Ever increasing property tax, repairs, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "207fb453e7c2de3a3ad69727c49771c6", "text": "In the US market at least, there is long-term evidence that there's no strong correlation between interest rates and house prices. A less detailed Canadian study found that house prices tended to increase when rates increase. One possible reason: interest rates can increase when the economy is doing well (needs less help), which is also the time when people feel more confident about buying. The are many reasons why Toronto condo prices may come down (such as oversupply), or may increase (empty nesters downsizing). But, by itself, a small increase in interest rates appears, based on history, to be unlikely to lead to a substantial drop in prices over a short timescale.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed67165e8d1ab23a54057a4cfbe8b895", "text": "The real estate industry today is highly exploitative, you're right, but there are currently nothing stopping rents from rising. The major controls in place are are primarily supply constraints, which would lower prices if removed by allowing small, entrepreneurial developers and builders to create new housing more easily. There's also nothing to stop institutional investors from buying up all the housing right now, but those investors are generally not looking for high growth, they're looking for stable returns. Apartment buildings are viewed as similar to blue chip stock portfolios in that regard. Low growth, but also low risk. The reason capitalism wouldn't lead to monopoly is that it takes work both to gain resources, and to retain them, and the most reliable way to retain them is to reinvest them in the economy. Investment permits new businesses to grow, and new industries to form. It's precisely because the economy isn't limited to a fixed size that wealth of one group doesn't require to poverty of others. New value creation is the core of the theory, and nearly every living person has at least some capital (their body and mind) to begin employing toward value creation. I recommend reading Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson if you'd like to understand the theory behind why and how free market capitalism is supposed to work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd57f1ea690f9124b3ee57d50629d863", "text": "\"I don't buy the \"\"house prices will always increase due to the increased cost of raw materials\"\" argument. In a lot of countries you will find that the cost of (re)building a property is substantially lower than its perceived sale value. If it wasn't, there would be no incentive for developers to take the risk of buying the land and building houses on it. Say the cost of building the house is 50% of the sale price (which might already be generous). Materials probably account for half of the building cost so you've got 25% tail wagging 75% dog? I'd start to worry if people buy property as a get rich quick scheme, which seems to be what you're describing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cb8d2713786a67c691618f992ccd148", "text": "The assumption that house value appreciates 5% per year is unrealistic. Over the very long term, real house prices has stayed approximately constant. A house that is 10 years old today is 11 years old a year after, so this phenomenon of real house prices staying constant applies only to the market as a whole and not to an individual house, unless the individual house is maintained well. One house is an extremely poorly diversified investment. What if the house you buy turns out to have a mold problem? You can lose your investment almost overnight. In contrast to this, it is extremely unlikely that the same could happen on a well-diversified stock portfolio (although it can happen on an individual stock). Thus, if non-leveraged stock portfolio has a nominal return of 8% over the long term, I would demand higher return, say 10%, from a non-leveraged investment to an individual house because of the greater risks. If you have the ability to diversify your real estate investments, a portfolio of diversified real estate investments is safer than a diversified stock portfolio, so I would demand a nominal return of 6% over the long term from such a diversified portfolio. To decide if it's better to buy a house or to live in rental property, you need to gather all of the costs of both options (including the opportunity cost of the capital which you could otherwise invest elsewhere). The real return of buying a house instead of renting it comes from the fact that you do not need to pay rent, not from the fact that house prices tend to appreciate (which they won't do more than inflation over a very long term). For my case, I live in Finland in a special case of near-rental property where you pay 15% of the building cost when moving in (and get the 15% payment back when moving out) and then pay a monthly rent that is lower than the market rent. The property is subsidized by government-provided loans. I have calculated that for my case, living in this property makes more sense than purchasing a market-priced house, but your situation may be different.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b35b8287eb0a1f8cad71238509d3ee0c", "text": "One extremely important aspect that must be taken into consideration is the state of the housing market. If prices are rising it will probably be a false economy to delay your house purchase. Say you pay off a £5,000 student loan, thus delaying your house purchase another year you could well end up forking out an extra £10,000 on the mortgage due to the rise in house prices. Of course, if the housing market is falling then, without a doubt, pay off the student debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1372eca98843f33d82d53e28b69a5f0b", "text": "\"No, it can really not. Look at Detroit, which has lost a million residents over the past few decades. There is plenty of real estate which will not go for anything like it was sold. Other markets are very risky, like Florida, where speculators drive too much of the price for it to be stable. You have to be sure to buy on the downturn. A lot of price drops in real estate are masked because sellers just don't sell, so you don't really know how low the price is if you absolutely had to sell. In general, in most of America, anyway, you can expect Real Estate to keep up with inflation, but not do much better than that. It is the rental income or the leverage (if you buy with a mortgage) that makes most of the returns. In urban markets that are getting an influx of people and industry, however, Real Estate can indeed outpace inflation, but the number of markets that do this are rare. Also, if you look at it strictly as an investment (as opposed to the question of \"\"Is it worth it to own my own home?\"\") there are a lot of additional costs that you have to recoup, from property taxes to bills, rental headaches etc. It's an investment like any other, and should be approached with the same due diligence.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54021fa6f8918e0f14a01e2c971c153b", "text": "\"Note: I am making a USA-assumption here; keep in mind this answer doesn't necessarily apply to all countries (or even states in the USA). You asked two questions: I'm looking to buy a property. I do not want to take a risk on this property. Its sole purpose is to provide me with a place to live. How would I go about hedging against increasing interest rates, to counter the increasing mortgage costs? To counter increasing interest rates, obtaining a fixed interest rate on a mortgage is the answer, if that's available. As far as costs for a mortgage, that depends, as mortgages are tied to the value of the property/home. If you want a place to live, a piece of property, and want to hedge against possible rising interest rates, a fixed mortgage would work for these goals. Ideally I'd like to not lose money on my property, seeing as I will be borrowing 95% of the property's value. So, I'd like to hedge against interest rates and falling property prices in order to have a risk neutral position on my property. Now we have a different issue. For instance, if someone had opened a fixed mortgage on a home for $500,000, and the housing value plummeted 50% (or more), the person may still have a fixed interest rate protecting the person from higher rates, but that doesn't protect the property value. In addition to that, if the person needed to move for a job, that person would face a difficult choice: move and sell at a loss, or move and rent and face some complications. Renting is generally a good idea for people who (1) have not determined if they'll be in an area for more than 5-10 years, (2) want the flexibility to move if their living costs rises (which may be an issue if they lose wages), (3) don't want to pay property taxes (varies by state), homeowner's insurance, or maintenance costs, (4) enjoy regular negotiation (something which renters can do before re-signing a lease or looking for a new place to live). Again, other conditions can apply to people who favor renting, such as someone might enjoy living in one room out of a house rather than a full apartment or a person who likes a \"\"change of scenes\"\" and moves from one apartment to another for a fresh perspective, but these are smaller exceptions. But with renting, you have nothing to re-sell and no financial asset so far as a property is concerned (thus why some real estate agents refer to it as \"\"throwing away money\"\" which isn't necessarily true, but one should be aware that the money they invest in renting doesn't go into an asset that can be re-sold).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c548c8f369622eaa6e0093a5f0b5d4ea", "text": "\"There has been almost no inflation during 2014-2015. do you mean rental price inflation or overall inflation? Housing price and by extension rental price inflation is usually much higher than the \"\"basket of goods\"\" CPI or RPI numbers. The low levels of these two indicators are mostly caused by technology, oil and food price deflation (at least in the US, UK, and Europe) outweighing other inflation. My slightly biased (I've just moved to a new rental property) and entirely London-centric empirical evidence suggests that 5% is quite a low figure for house price inflation and therefore also rental inflation. Your landlord will also try to get as much for the property as he can so look around for similar properties and work out what a market rate might be (within tolerances of course) and negotiate based on that. For the new asked price I could get a similar apartment in similar condos with gym and pool (this one doesn't have anything) or in a way better area (closer to supermarkets, restaurants, etc). suggests that you have already started on this and that the landlord is trying to artificially inflate rents. If you can afford the extra 5% and these similar but better appointed places are at that price why not move? It sounds like the reason that you are looking to stay on in this apartment is either familiarity or loyalty to the landlord so it may be time to benefit from a move.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98095fce9f91dbb6362fac9280e52d8c", "text": "Real estate is always an interesting dynamic. In most cases prices have always gone up. Price is mainly a function of demand. Sometimes demand is artificially inflated over a short term period and can come down quickly due to corrections. During recessions the housing market will usually slow down. There are some rare instances where certain areas never recover (see Subprime Mortgage Crisis Savings & Loans Crisis where scores of unwanted properties exist). Things to consider:", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a3ef71ca1677a498ba44f41fe807eceb	Do bond interest rate risk premiums only compensate for the amount investors might lose?	[ { "docid": "9852216cde5c4e947daed12ed984d1e7", "text": "In answer to your last formulation, no. In a perfectly efficient market, different investors still have different risk tolerances (or utility functions). They're maximizing expected utility, not expected value. The portfolios that maximize expected utility for different risk preferences are different, and thus generally have different expected values. (Look up mean-variance utility for a simple-ish example.) Suppose you have log utility for money, u(x) = log(x), and your choice is to invest all of your money in either the risk-free bond or in the risky bond. In the risky bond, you have a positive probability of losing everything, achieving utility u(0) = -\\infty. Your expected utility after purchase of the risky bond is: Pr(default)u(default) + (1-Pr(default))u(nominalValue). Since u(default)= -\\infty, your expected utility is also negative infinity, and you would never make this investment. Instead you would purchase the risk-free bond. But another person might have linear utility, u(x) = x, and he would be indifferent between the risk-free and risky bonds at the prices you mention above and might therefore purchase some. (In fact you probably would have bid up the price of the risk-free bond, so that the other investor strictly prefers the risky one.) So two different investors' portfolios will have different expected returns, in general, because of their different risk preferences. Risk-averse investors get lower expected value. This should be very intuitive from portfolio theory in general: stocks have higher expected returns, but more variance. Risk-tolerant people can accept more stocks and more variance, risk-averse people purchase less stocks and more bonds. The more general question about risk premia requires an equilibrium price analysis, which requires assumptions about the distribution of risk preferences among other things. Maybe John Cochrane's book would help with that---I don't know anything about financial economics. I would think that in the setup above, if you have positive quantities of these two investor types, the risk-free bond will become more expensive, so that the risky one offers a higher expected return. This is the general thing that happens in portfolio theory. Anyway. I'm not a financial economist or anything. Here's a standard introduction to expected utility theory: http://web.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Econ%20202/Uncertainty.pdf", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74ede1bfc19a1ebc6de5dec45e802bfd", "text": "\"[...] are all bonds priced in such a way so that they all return the same amount (on average), after accounting for risk? In other words, do risk premiums ONLY compensate for the amount investors might lose? No. GE might be able to issue a bond with lower yield than, say, a company from China with no previous records of its presence in the U.S. markets. A bond price not only contains the risk of default, but also encompasses the servicability of the bond by the issuer with a specific stream of income, location of main business, any specific terms and conditions in the prospectus, e.g.callable or not, insurances against default, etc. Else for the same payoff, why would you take a higher risk? The payoff of a higher risk (not only default, but term structure, e.g. 5 years or 10 years, coupon payments) bond is more, to compensate for the extra risk it entails for the bondholder. The yield of a high risk bond will always be higher than a bond with lower risk. If you travel back in time, to 2011-2012, you would see the yields on Greek bonds were in the range of 25-30%, to reflect the high risk of a Greek default. Some hedge funds made a killing by buying Greek bonds during the eurozone crisis. If you go through the Efficient frontier theory, your argument is a counter statement to it. Same with individual bonds, or a portfolio of bonds. You always want to be compensated for the risk you take. The higher the risk, the higher the compensation, and vice versa. When investors buy the bond at this price, they are essentially buying a \"\"risk free\"\" bond [...] Logically yes, but no it isn't, and you shouldn't make that assumption.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e87cf009a427c288022fcb9eaf253bed", "text": "You are comparing a risk-free cost with a risky return. If you can tolerate that level of risk (the ups and downs of the investment) for the chance that you'll come out ahead in the long-run, then sure, you could do that. So the parameters to your equation would be: If you assume that the risky returns are normally distributed, then you can use normal probability tables to determine what risk level you can tolerate. To put some real numbers to it, take the average S&P 500 return of 10% and standard deviation of 18%. Using standard normal functions, we can calculate the probability that you earn more than various interest rates: so even with a low 3% interest rate, there's roughly a 1 in 3 chance that you'll actually be worse off (the gains on your investments will be less than the interest you pay). In any case there's a 3 in 10 chance that your investments will lose money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1226b18f17ae68a16316ef098513605", "text": "Very likely this refers to trading/speculating on leverage, not investing. Of course, as soon as you put leverage into the equation this perfectly makes sense. 2007-2009 for example, if one bought the $SPX at its highs in 2007 at ~$1560.00 - to the lows from 2009 at ~$683.00 - implicating that with only 2:1 leverage a $1560.00 account would have received a margin call. At least here in Europe I can trade index CFD's and other leveraged products. If i trade lets say >50:1 leverage it doesn’t take much to get a margin call and/or position closed by the broker. No doubt, depending on which investments you choose there’s always risk, but currency is a position too. TO answer the question, I find it very unlikely that >90% of investors (referring to stocks) lose money / purchasing power. Anyway, I would not deny that where speculators (not investors) use leverage or try to trade swings, news etc. have a very high risk of losing money (purchasing power).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd4931e1968953260f3368e895dd5e48", "text": "Bonds provide protections against stock market crashes, diversity and returns as the other posters have said but the primary reason to invest in bonds is to receive relatively guaranteed income. By that I mean you receive regular payments as long as the debtor doesn't go bankrupt and stop paying. Even when this happens, bondholders are the first in line to get paid from the sale of the business's assets. This also makes them less risky. Stocks don't guarantee income and shareholders are last in line to get paid. When a stock goes to zero, you lose everything, where as a bondholder will get some face value redemption to the notes issue price and still keep all the previous income payments. In addition, you can use your bond income to buy more shares of stock and increase your gains there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9925f51cfc0dc10df8dbc5d97d0bb110", "text": "\"The bond funds should tell you their duration. My 401(k) has similar choices, and right now, I'm at the short maturity, i.e. under 1 year. The current return is awful, but better than the drop the longer term funds will experience as rates come back up. Not quite mathematically correct, but close enough, \"\"duration\"\" gives you the time-weighted average maturity in a way that tells you how the value responds to a rate change. If a fund has a 10 year duration, a .1% rate rise will cause the fund value to drop 1.0%.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b67e4d82a9e0277becf00e9f95279d94", "text": "\"You may be thinking about this the wrong way. The yield (Return) on your investment is effectively the market price paid to the investor for the amount of risk assumed for participating. Looking at the last few years, many including myself would have given their left arm for a so-called \"\"meager return\"\" instead of the devastation visited on our portfolios. In essence, higher return almost always (arguably always) comes at the cost of increased risk. You just have to decide your risk profile and investment goals. For example, which of the following scenarios would you prefer? Investment Option A Treasuries, CD's Worst Case: 1% gain Best Case 5% gain Investment option B Equities/Commodities Worst Case: 25% loss Best Case: 40% gain\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c4877759badd49c65120dde596c39fc", "text": "The people who bought when interest rates were higher, do they get anything out of it? The present value just went up of their Bonds just went up, but it probably evened out to the 3% they were going to get right? Do they make more money selling the bond now, or holding on to it till maturity in PV terms?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4ae774d48fa6d2cae21d71ed5c702bf", "text": "\"A (very) simplified bond-pricing equation goes thus: Fair_Price: {Face_Value * (1 + Interest - Expected_Market_Return) ^ (Years_To_Maturity)} * P(Company_Will_Default_Before_Maturity) To reiterate, that is a very simplified model. But it allows us to demonstrate the 3 key factors that drive \"\"Fair\"\" Value: The interest relative to the current market rate. If your AAA bond yields 1%, but an equally-good AAA bond currently sells at 3% in the market, then the \"\"Equivalent\"\" value is the face value minus 2% (1% - 3%) for every year to maturity. Years to maturity. Because 1) is multiplied for every year to maturity, longer-dated bonds are more sensitive to changes in market rates. If your bond yields 2% less than market but matures in a year, then it's worth $98, but if it matures in 56 years, then it's only worth 0.98^56 = $32. Conversely, if your bond yields more than the market rate, then its' price will be greater than face value. The company might default on the debt. If a Bond has a \"\"Fair\"\" Value of $100, but you think there's a 50% chance that the company will default, then it's only worth $50. In fact, it can be worth even less because getting paid on a defaulted bond can often take time and/or money and/or lawyers. In your case, because your bond matures in 56 years but yields ~5% (well above the current market rate), for it to be below Face value implies a strong probability of default, or a strong belief that market returns will be above 5% over the next 56 years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ab2573cad4bde03574e290f5e8ed6ac", "text": "\"I think this is a good question with no single right answer. For a conservative investor, possible responses to low rates would be: Probably the best response is somewhere in the middle: consider riskier investments for a part of your portfolio, but still hold on to some cash, and in any case do not expect great results in a bad economy. For a more detailed analysis, let's consider the three main asset classes of cash, bonds, and stocks, and how they might preform in a low-interest-rate environment. (By \"\"stocks\"\" I really mean mutual funds that invest in a diversified mixture of stocks, rather than individual stocks, which would be even riskier. You can use mutual funds for bonds too, although diversification is not important for government bonds.) Cash. Advantages: Safe in the short term. Available on short notice for emergencies. Disadvantages: Low returns, and possibly inflation (although you retain the flexibility to move to other investments if inflation increases.) Bonds. Advantages: Somewhat higher returns than cash. Disadvantages: Returns are still rather low, and more vulnerable to inflation. Also the market price will drop temporarily if rates rise. Stocks. Advantages: Better at preserving your purchasing power against inflation in the long term (20 years or more, say.) Returns are likely to be higher than stocks or bonds on average. Disadvantages: Price can fluctuate a lot in the short-to-medium term. Also, expected returns are still less than they would be in better economic times. Although the low rates may change the question a little, the most important thing for an investor is still to be familiar with these basic asset classes. Note that the best risk-adjusted reward might be attained by some mixture of the three.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad64b8995684cf9541d506b431cd2c60", "text": "\"I don't think \"\"cost of carry\"\" is the right word here. Yes, you have the opportunity cost (what you could have earned during that time if you had invested the money somehwere else) and then you also have interest rate risk and default risk.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "685c019870334a5ff27af03d3dc4d69e", "text": "Very rarely would an investor be happy with a 4% yield independent of anything else that might happen in the future. For example, if in 3 years for some reason or other inflation explodes and 30 year bond yields go up to 15% across the board, they would be kicking themselves for having locked it up for 30 years at 4%. However, if instead of doing that the investor put their money in a 3 year bond at 3% say, they would have the opportunity to reinvest in the new rate environment, which might offer higher or lower yields. This eventually leads fixed income investors to have a bond portfolio in which they manage the average maturity of their bond portfolio to be somewhere between the two extremes of investing it all in super short term/ low yield money market rates vs. super long term bonds. As they constantly monitor and manage their maturing investments, it inevitably leads them to managing interest rate risk as they decide where to reinvest their incremental coupons by looking at the shape of the yield curve at the time and determining what kind of risk/reward tradeoffs they would have to make.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "402a87f41604e564b95a985b926fb3a2", "text": "I definitely get that, my company has been really big on ILS’s lately, so in a meeting the other day I was looking at ways to short Cat Bonds.... The problem is you’d have to offer a big premium to someone that you sell the risk too since the whole industry is having to do that now. And on risky areas like Oklahoma or California for earthquakes I couldn’t imagine the premium you’d have to pay since the risk is up front and present. If you don’t want to pay the premium and choose some risk that isn’t as foreseen you should probably have a good method of evaluating that risk. Which is the point I have ran into in my quest to short ILSs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dca1559289fffc177eda19252b171f5f", "text": "Your goals are mutually exclusive. You cannot both earn a return that will outpace inflation while simultaneously having zero-risk of losing money, at least not in the 2011 market. In 2008, a 5+% CD would have been a good choice. Here's a potential compromise... sacrifice some immediate liquidity for more earnings. Say you had $10,000 saved: In this scheme, you've diversified a little bit, have access to 50% of your money immediately (either through online transfer or bringing your bonds to a teller), have an implicit US government guarantee for 50% of your money and low risk for the rest, and get inflation protection for 75% of your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f844c3721d14b0eb0bbbb2963e0852d", "text": "I researched quite a bit around this topic, and it seems that this is indeed false. Long ter asset growth does not converge to the compound interest rate of expected return. While it is true that standard deviations of annualized return decrease over time, because the asset value itself changes over time, the standard deviations of the total return actually increases. Thus, it is wrong to say that you can take increased risk because you have a longer time horizon. Source", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b807557ba137c1143736dc37981715b", "text": "I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e4bbd3e7d72c51119d1690928f018d4", "text": "\"The federal funds rate is one of the risk-free short-term rates in the economy. We often think of fixed income securities as paying this rate plus some premia associated with risk. For a treasury security, we can think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) The term premium is a bit extra the bond pays because if you hold a long term bond, you are exposed to interest rate risk, which is the risk that rates will generally rise after you buy, making your bond worth less. The relation is more complex if people have expectations of future rate moves, but this is the general idea. Anyway, generally speaking, longer term bonds are exposed to more interest rate risk, so they pay more, on average. For a corporate bond, we think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) + (default premium) where the default premium is some extra that the bond must pay to compensate the holder for default risk, which is the risk that the bond defaults or loses value as the company's prospects fall. You can see that corporate and government bonds are affected the same way (approximately, this is all hand-waving) by changes in the fed funds rate. Now, that all refers to the rates on new bonds. After a bond is issued, its value falls if rates rise because new bonds are relatively more attractive. Its value rises if rates on new bonds falls. So if there is an unexpected rise in the fed funds rate and you are holding a bond, you will be sad, especially if it is a long term bond (doesn't matter if it's corporate or government). Ask yourself, though, whether an increase in fed funds will be unexpected at this point. If the increase was expected, it will already be priced in. Are you more of an expert than the folks on wall-street at predicting interest rate changes? If not, it might not make sense to make decisions based on your belief about where rates are going. Just saying. Brick points out that treasuries are tax advantaged. That is, you don't have to pay state income tax on them (but you do pay federal). If you live in a state where this is true, this may matter to you a little bit. They also pay unnaturally little because they are convenient for use as a cash substitute in transactions and margining (\"\"convenience yield\"\"). In general, treasuries just don't pay much. Young folk like you tend to buy corporate bonds instead, so they can make money on the default and term premia.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7a16937db7efa196d55054e5359a7d9b	Making an offer on a property - go in at market price?	[ { "docid": "d1ac14ed5c52248ddcc1ad2e0d4f19a0", "text": "\"Firstly, the agent doesn't work for you. He works for himself. It's in his interest not to get you a house at the lowest cost but to sell you a house. The higher the price the higher his commission is, or the higher the probability that the seller will sell it meaning less work for him. It depends on the market what price you should give. If I were you, I would do my own research about this area and not just trust the agent's assessment of it being a \"\"seller's\"\" market. Not sure where we are talking about but as you know, house prices have fallen a lot in the last few years and the economy isn't doing that well. It also depends on yourself. Every house is different and there's an emotional attachment to buying property. How much do you really want this house? Would it matter if you didn't get it? Are you prepared to keep looking? If this is your dream house, then maybe it is worth offering a bit more to ensure that you get it. If not, and you are prepared to wait, then yeah, I would shoot a little lower and see what they say. One thing I will say though is generally even if you give them a low offer, unless they're getting lots of other offers or they have to sell urgently, alot of the times the seller will come back and try to negotiate with you anyway. After all, it's business and they're there to get the highest price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9578d315ac9c6ec13f3573bbae8dd82", "text": "From then on we've felt he was really pushy and rushing us to make a decision (we need to lock in a good rate, its a sellers market, it'll go fast, snooze loose, etc). This is the first reason for walking away. I understand that all those factors might be true but my question is: How do I know we made a good offer? I'm going to be blunt, here: You don't. You work out ahead of time what you will pay (ignore the agent) and you make the offer on the basis of your own research, research you spent months undertaking. The listed price on the location is $375,000 and according to our agent similar units over the last few years had sold for that amount. So our agent suggested making an offer at market price. According to the agent. I'm going to be blunt here, what do any of the real estate sites out there - that offer a wealth of information for free - indicate? If you don't know, then yet again you don't know if you made the right offer or not. Do some research now by yourself. I would be shocked if your offer was at the right level. Set your emotions aside - there are a gazillion houses out there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "241f4865e904c4cb490fc953274884e1", "text": "\"First off; I don't know of the nature of the interpersonal relationship between you and your roommate, and I don't really care, but I will say that your use of that term was a red flag to me, and it will be so to a bank; buying a home is a big deal that you normally do not undertake with just a \"\"friend\"\" or \"\"roommate\"\". \"\"Spouses\"\", \"\"business partners\"\", \"\"domestic partners\"\" etc are the types of people that go in together on a home purchase, not \"\"roommates\"\". Going \"\"halvsies\"\" on a house is not something that's easily contracted; you can't take out two primary mortgages for half the house's value each, because you can't split the house in half, so if one of you defaults that bank takes the house leaving both the other person and their bank in the lurch. Co-signing on one mortgage is possible but then you tie your credit histories together; if one of you can't make their half of the mortgage, both of you can be pursued for the full amount and both of you will see your credit tank. That's not as big a problem for two people joined in some other way (marriage/family ties) but for two \"\"friends\"\" there's just way too much risk involved. Second, I don't know what it's like in your market, but when I was buying my first house I learned very quickly that extended haggling is not really tolerated in the housing market. You're not bidding on some trade good the guy bought wholesale for fifty cents and is charging you $10 for; the seller MIGHT be breaking even on this thing. An offer that comes in low is more likely to be rejected outright as frivolous than to be countered. It's a fine line; if you offer a few hundred less than list the seller will think you're nitpicking and stay firm, while if you offer significantly less, the seller may be unable to accept that price because it means he no longer has the cash to close on his new home. REOs and bank-owned properties are often sold at a concrete asking price; the bank will not even respond to anything less, and usually will not even agree to eat closing costs. Even if it's for sale by owner, the owner may be in trouble on their own mortgage, and if they agree to a short sale and the bank gets wind (it's trivial to match a list of distressed mortgaged properties with the MLS listings), the bank can swoop in, foreclose the mortgage, take the property and kill the deal (they're the primary lienholder; you don't \"\"own\"\" your house until it's paid for), and then everybody loses. Third, housing prices in this economy, depending on market, are pretty depressed and have been for years; if you're selling right now, you are almost certainly losing thousands of dollars in cash and/or equity. Despite that, sellers, in listing their home, must offer an attractive price for the market, and so they are in the unenviable position of pricing based on what they can afford to lose. That again often means that even a seller who isn't a bank and isn't in mortgage trouble may still be losing thousands on the deal and is firm on the asking price to staunch the bleeding. Your agent can see the signs of a seller backed against a wall, and again in order for your offer to be considered in such a situation it has to be damn close to list. As far as your agent trying to talk you into offering the asking price, there's honestly not much in it for him to tell you to bid higher vs lower. A $10,000 change in price (which can easily make or break a deal) is only worth $300 to him either way. There is, on the other hand, a huge incentive for him to close the deal at any price that's in the ballpark: whether it's $365k or $375k, he's taking home around $11k in commission, so he's going to recommend an offer that will be seriously considered (from the previous points, that's going to be the asking price right now). The agent's exact motivations for advising you to offer list depend on the exact circumstances, typically centering around the time the house has been on the market and the offer history, which he has access to via his fellow agents and the MLS. The house may have just had a price drop that brings it below comparables, meaning the asking price is a great deal and will attract other offers, meaning you need to move fast. The house may have been offered on at a lower price which the seller is considering (not accepted not rejected), meaning an offer at list price will get you the house, again if you move fast. Or, the house may have been on the market for a while without a price drop, meaning the seller can go no lower but is desperate, again meaning an offer at list will get you the house. Here's a tip: virtually all offers include a \"\"buyer's option\"\". For a negotiated price (typically very small, like $100), from the moment the offer is accepted until a particular time thereafter (one week, two weeks, etc) you can say no at any time, for any reason. During this time period, you get a home inspection, and have a guy you trust look at the bones of the house, check the basic systems, and look for things that are wrong that will be expensive to fix. Never make an offer without this option written in. If your agent says to forego the option, fire him. If the seller wants you to strike the option clause, refuse, and that should be a HUGE red flag that you should rescind the offer entirely; the seller is likely trying to get rid of a house with serious issues and doesn't want a competent inspector telling you to lace up your running shoes. Another tip: depending on the pricepoint, the seller may be expecting to pay closing costs. Those are traditionally the buyer's responsibility along with the buyer's agent commission, but in the current economy, in the pricepoint for your market that attracts \"\"first-time homebuyers\"\", sellers are virtually expected to pay both of those buyer costs, because they're attracting buyers who can just barely scrape the down payment together. $375k in my home region (DFW) is a bit high to expect such a concession for that reason (usually those types of offers come in for homes at around the $100-$150k range here), but in the overall market conditions, you have a good chance of getting the seller to accept that concession if you pay list. But, that is usually an offer made up front, not a weapon kept in reserve, so I would have expected your agent to recommend that combined offer up front; list price and seller pays closing. If you offer at list you don't expect a counter, so you wouldn't keep closing costs as a card to play in that situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1671e0c36aa97edecf1b36e4e2d806b0", "text": "\"First piece of advice: fire your agent. A pushy agent is a bad agent. From what you've told us, he's actually given you poor advice regarding mortgage interest rates. Rates are already at historic lows. That and the precarious state of the world economy mean that further rate cuts are more likely in the near term. Second piece of advice: While more information on the real estate market you're in would help, going in at asking price is rarely a good idea. Sale prices from \"\"the last few years\"\" are not relevant to what you should pay, because the last few years include a financial crisis caused in large part by the bursting of a housing bubble. They could be even less relevant depending on your location because of a spike in foreclosures in certain areas of the U.S. There was already a ton of housing inventory before, so an increase due to foreclosures is going to depress prices further. Now that banks are finally practicing the due diligence they should have been all along, your ability to be pre-approved for large mortgage amount puts you in a strong position. Use a tool like Zillow or Redfin to see what properties in that area have sold for over the past six months. You should also be able to see a history of what prices the particular property you're interested in has been offered and/or sold at in the past. Also check and see how long the particular property you're interested in has been on the market. If it's been on the market more than 60-90 days, it's priced too high.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a4fb368b6631427c533efacb6489ecc", "text": "Both of my primary home purchases were either at, or close to asking price. My first house was during the local seller's market in 2001-2002. There were waiting lines for open houses. In hindsight we bought more home than we needed at the time but that had nothing to do with offering asking price. It was the market for the type of property (location and features) at that time. My second house was a little after the peak in 2008. The value had come down quite a bit and the property was priced on the low side versus the comps. To this day my second house still appraises higher than what we paid for it even though it was at asking price. As a third example, my brother-in-law got into a bidding war on his first home purchase and ended up buying it for above asking price. This was normal for the houses in the area he was looking at. With real estate, like other people have said, it really is important to either know the area you are looking at or to get an agent you trust and have them explain their reasons for their offer strategy through the comps. Yes agents need to make money but the good ones have been in the business a while and also live off of repeat business when you sell your house or refer friends and family to them. Agents do a lot less work when it comes to selling by the way so they would love for you to come back to them when it's time to sell. If I'm not happy with the way things are going with my agent I would have a heart to heart with them and give them a chance to correct the relationship. I've spoken to a realtor friend in the past about getting out of buyer's contracts and he told me it's a lot easier as a buyer than a seller. The buyer has most of the power during the process. The seller just has what the buyer wants.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "59b6f3eb56c43f3107ec7bcacdb5d90c", "text": "\"EVERYONE buys at the ask price and sells at the bid price (no matter who you are). There are a few important things you need to understand. Example: EVE bid: 16.00 EVE ask: 16.25 So if your selling EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering an ask equal to the highest bid ($16.00). If you buy EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering a bid equal to the lowest ask price ($16.25). Its key to understand this rule: \"\"An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask).\"\" So a market maker puts in a bid when he wants to buy but the trade only executes when an ASK price meets his BID price. When you see a quote for a stock it is the price of the last trade. So it is possible to have a quote higher or lower then both the bid and the ask.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "302ff94541610d094a190bec9d6a88c4", "text": "Both seem to be reasonable. To decide you need to guess if the value of the house will go up or down between now and when you sell. If you think the value will go up - reach a calculation agreement now. If you think the value will go down - wait until the house is actually sold. So ya pays yer money, and ya takes yer chances... I think I understand the two scenarios Unless you are absolutely confident that you understand both scenarios - make sure your lawyer gets involved and explains them to you until you do understand.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04bfc87cb156f3d2cd6b402f7d5d60ca", "text": "Sounds to me like you're describing just how it should work. Ask is at 30, Bid is at 20; you offer a new bid at 25. Either: Depending on liquidity, one or the other may be more likely. This Investorplace article on the subject describes what you're seeing, and recommends the strategy you're describing precisely. Instead of a market order, take advantage of the fact that the options world truly is a marketplace — one where you can possibly get a better price just by asking. How does that work? If you use a limit order (instead of a market order) when opening a position, you can tell your broker how much you are willing to pay to enter a trade. For example, if you enter a limit price of $1.15, you can see whether the market-maker will bite. You will be surprised at how many times you will get your price (i.e., $1.15) instead of the ask price of $1.30. If your order at $1.15 is not filled after a few minutes, you can modify your order and pay the ask price by entering a market order or limit order at the ask price (that is, you can tell your broker to pay no more than $1.30).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "321a9e0dfd37e1eb1cf5a0bb3780e3f3", "text": "EDIT: new ideas based on the full story. I wouldn't worry about the price history. While it is certainly true that some buyers might try to leverage that information against you, the bottom line is the price is the price. Both the buyer and the seller have to agree. If the initial listing was too high, then lower the price. If that isn't low enough, then readjust down. I see no harm in moving the price down over time repeatedly. In fact, I thin that is a good tactic to getting the most for the house. If you happen to have the luxury of time, then keep lowering that price until it sells. Don't fret how that behavior appears. You can lower the price as often as you like until it sells. I am not a real estate agent, and I am a terrible negotiator, but I would lower the price every quarter until it sells. You can't go down to fast (a buyer might wait you out) and you can't wait to long as you stated. Also, if you house is priced inline with the neighborhood, you can at least get offers and negotiate. Buy asking for such a premium (25%) folks might not even make an offer. You simply need to decide what is more important, the selling price or the time frame in getting it sold. If you house doesn't sell because the market doesn't support your price, then consider keeping it as a rental. You can do it yourself, or if you are not interested in that (large) amount of work, then hire a rental management company to do it for a fee. Renting a home is hard work and requires attention to detail, a good amount of your time and much labor. If you just need to wait a couple of years before selling, renting it can be a good option to cover your costs while you wait for the market to reach you. You should get advice on how to handle the money, how to rent it, how to deal with renters, and the the laws are in your jurisdiction. Rent it out to a trusted friend or family member for a steal of a deal. They save money, and you get the luxury of time waiting for the sale. With a real estate lawyer you hire, get a contract for a lease option or owner finance deal on the house. Sometimes you can expand the market of people looking to buy your house. If you have a willing purchaser will bad credit, you can be doing them a favor and solving your own issue. It costs money and you will make less on the sale, but it could be better than nothing. Take heed, there is a reason some people cannot get a traditional loan on their own. Before you extend your good name or credit think about it. It is another hassle for sure. This won't help if you have to pay off a mortgage, but you could donate it. This is another tricky deal that you really need to speak with a lawyer who specialize in charitable giving. There are tax benefits, but I would make any kind of a deal where tax deductions are the only benefit. This is common enough these days. If you are unable to pay for the mortgage, it benefits you and the bank to get into a short sale arrangement. They bank gets probably more money than if they have to foreclose (and they save money on legal fees) and you can get rid of the obligation. You will do a deed in lieu or the short sale depending on how the market it and what the house can be sold for. You and the bank will have to work it out. This will ruin for a credit for a while, and you will not likely qualify to get a new mortgage for at least a few years. You can stop paying your mortgage, tell the bank and they will foreclose. This is going to ruin your credit for a long time as well as disqualify you from mortgages in the near future. Don't do this. If you are planning a foreclosure, take the time to contact your bank and arrange a short sale or a deed in lieu. There isn't really any excuse to go into foreclosure if you are having problems. Talk to the bank and work out a deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bffdd2b0003ce358a8fc2bc569131763", "text": "\"Price is decided by what shares are offered at what prices and who blinks first. The buyer and seller are both trying to find the best offer, for their definition of best, within the constraints then have set on their bid or ask. The seller will sell to the highest bid they can get that they consider acceptable. The buyer will buy from the lowest offer they can get that they consider acceptable. The price -- and whether a sale/purchase happens at all -- depends on what other trades are still available and how long you're willing to wait for one you're happy with, and may be different on one share than another \"\"at the same time\"\" if the purchase couldn't be completed with the single best offer and had to buy from multiple offers. This may have been easier to understand in the days of open outcry pit trading, when you could see just how chaotic the process is... but it all boils down to a high-speed version of seeking the best deal in an old-fashioned marketplace where no prices are fixed and every sale requires (or at least offers the opportunity for) negotiation. \"\"Fred sells it five cents cheaper!\"\" \"\"Then why aren't you buying from him?\"\" \"\"He's out of stock.\"\" \"\"Well, when I don't have any, my price is ten cents cheaper.\"\" \"\"Maybe I won't buy today, or I'll buy elsewhere. \"\"Maybe I won't sell today. Or maybe someone else will pay my price. Sam looks interested...\"\" \"\"Ok, ok. I can offer two cents more.\"\" \"\"Three. Sam looks really interested.\"\" \"\"Two and a half, and throw in an apple for Susie.\"\" \"\"Done.\"\" And the next buyer or seller starts the whole process over again. Open outcry really is just a way of trying to shop around very, very, very fast, and electronic reconciliation speeds it up even more, but it's conceptually the same process -- either seller gets what they're asking, or they adjust and/or the buyer adjusts until they meet, or everyone agrees that there's no agreement and goes home.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d8c9f475503a6d26527bf51a9b7c732", "text": "The Bid price is simply the highest buy price currently being offered and the Ask price simply the lowest sell price being offered. The list of Bid and Ask prices is called the market depth. When the Bid and Ask prices match then a sale goes through. When looking to sell you would generally look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a seller you want to be matched with the Bid price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Ask prices. If the price you want to sell at is too high you will be placed down the Ask price list, and unless the price moves up to match your sell price you will not end up selling. On the other-hand, if your price to sell is too low and in fact much lower than the current lowest sell price you may get a quick sale but maybe at a lower price than you could have gotten. Similarly, when looking to buy, you would generally also look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a buyer you want to be matched with the Ask price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Bid prices. If the price you want to buy at is too low you will be placed down the Bid price list, and unless the price moves down to match your buy price you will no end up buying. On the other-hand, if your price to buy is too high and in fact much higher than the current highest buy price you may get a quick purchase but maybe at a higher price than you could have gotten. So, whether buying or selling, it is important to look at and consider both the Bid and Ask prices in the market depth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61c079ef2f132f729a06ac1ac383560e", "text": "\"even though they're only asking for 1/2 the money and have excellent credit that the mortgage company may not lend it to them if I'm over priced Yes. If the house's value, as determined by the appraisal, is less than the sale price, the bank will not finance the loan. Appraisals and the appraisal process have become much tighter since the Frannie and Freddie debacle. This fact is true regardless of amounts or credit history. Though this is happens somewhat rarely; typically if a seller and buyer agree to a price, this price is a reasonable value -- after all, that is nearly the definition of \"\"market value\"\". So, yes, it is true (and always true, for any financed purchase), but that shouldn't really affect your decision. If you try to sell for more than the appraisal, you will just lower the price to the appraised amount.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df5527df899950b6cbc702027a4673cc", "text": "\"The real estate agent industry is a cartel. They seek to keep fees high even as their services are becoming less and less necessary. To that end, traditional seller's agents will laugh at your attempt to negotiate their fee. They can do this quite simply because the industry is designed so the vast majority of people think of buyer's agents as \"\"free\"\" even when they are anything but free. That being said, the only way to do what you're trying to do is to find a buyer's agent who will rebate to you a portion of the commission they receive. It is extremely extremely unlikely you'll get a seller's agent to play ball especially once they know you're interested. You can check out redfin which connects people to RE agents that rebate commissions but the buyer's cut isn't that high. Your best bet, IMO, is to contact agents in your area before you go shopping to see what kind of rebate you can negotiate with them. A word of caution, if you look at a house without your own agent, instead asking the seller's agent to show the house they will claim procuring clause and you'll be sunk. In other words, once they claim procuring clause, you can't, later, go back and get a discount broker to get the commission to rebate to you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa3d4b96522bea88e0bdae412d40b18e", "text": "\"There is considerable truth to what your realtor said about the Jersey City NJ housing market these days. It is a \"\"hot\"\" area with lots of expensive condos being bought up by people working on Wall Street in NYC (very easy commute by train, etc) and in many cases, the offers to purchase can exceed the asking price significantly. Be that as is may, the issue with accepting a higher offer but smaller downpayment is that when the buyer's lender appraises the property, the valuation might come in lower and the buyer may have to come up with the difference, or be required to accept a higher interest rate, or be refused the loan altogether if the lender estimates that the buyer is likely to default on the loan because his credit-worthiness is inadequate to support the monthly payments. So, the sale might fall through. Suppose that the property is offered for sale at $500K, and consider two bids, one for $480K with 30% downpayment ($144K) and another for $500K with 20% downpayment ($100K). If the property appraises for $450K, say, and the lender is not willing to lend more than 80% of that ($360K), then Buyer #1 is OK; it is only necessary to borrow $480K - $144K = $336K, while Buyer #2 needs to come up with another $40K of downpayment to be able to get the loan, or might be asked to pay a higher interest rate since the lender will be lending more than 80% of the appraised value, etc. Of course, Buyer #2's lender might be using a different appraiser whose valuation might be higher etc, but appraisals usually are within the same ballpark. Furthermore, good seller's agents can make good estimates of what the appraisal is likely to be, and if the asking price is larger than the agent's estimate of appraised value, then it might be to the advantage of the selling agent to recommend accepting the lower offer with higher downpayment over the higher offer with smaller downpayment. The sale is more likely to go through, and an almost sure 6% of $480K (3% if there is a buyer's agent involved) in hand in 30 days time is worth more than a good chance of nothing at the end of 15 days when the mortgage is declined, during which the house has been off the market on the grounds that the sale is pending. If you really like a house, you need to decide what you are willing to pay for it and tailor your offer accordingly, keeping in mind what your buyer's agent is recommending as the offer amount (the higher the price, the more the agent's commission), how much money you can afford to put down as a downpayment (don't forget closing costs, including points that might be need to be paid), and what your pre-approval letter says about how much mortgage you can afford. If you are Buyer #1, have a pre-approval letter for $360K, and have enough savings for a downpayment of up to $150K, and if you (or your spouse!) really, really, like the place and cannot imagine living in any other place, then you could offer $500K with 30% down (and blow the other offer out of the water). You could even offer more than $500K if you want. But, this is a personal decision. What your realtor said is perfectly true in the sense that for Y > Z, an offer at $X with $Y down is better than an offer at $X with $Z down. It is to a certain extent true that for W > X, a seller would find an offer at $X with $Y down to be more attractive that an offer at $W with $Z$ down, but that depends on what the appraisal is likely to be, and the seller's agent's recommendations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98ca4d549287c7ab43dc505cd88d3e6b", "text": "Not that I am aware. There are times that an option is available, but none have traded yet, and it takes a request to get a bid/ask, or you can make an offer and see if it's accepted. But the option chain itself has to be open.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "351caceff65bf83be90d557d5c8a94f5", "text": "I stock is only worth what someone will pay for it. If you want to sell it you will get market price which is the bid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66d4014d0285f1fadf49f9f506d8c5c3", "text": "Did he say why he wants double your asking price? Did you explain to him how you came up with the offer you made? Sometimes exploring interests (why people make their decisions) is more helpful than bargaining over positions. If you understand why he wants double your offer (and he understands why you're offering a lower price) you might get closer to an agreement. Another option is to defer to a disinterested third-party who will pick a valuation for the company, and you can agree to abide by their decision (and pick a payout schedule if necessary) Think about what you'll do if you can't come to an agreement: is walking away from the business an option and going out on your own? What would happen to him if you simply walk away? It might be in his best interest to negotiate. Or will you reluctantly pay his asking price? Or can you sell the business to him? One option when partners need to split up is to have one of them set a value for the company, and the other decides if he wants to be the buyer or seller. (It's like the trick with kids where one cuts the cake and the other selects which slice he wants.) Maybe you can come up with a fair way of valuing the company. A lawyer will be needed to draw it all up, but you can agree on the framework of the deal ahead of time and save some money and stress. Last thought: when a win-win agreement isn't possible, sometimes the next best compromise is where everyone feels like he got equally screwed. That's ok, too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "039a71f141e848c3fc83ed22020c9e98", "text": "If you feel the house will appreciate, I'd say go for it. I'm not familiar with the Denver market but real estate can be a great way to build wealth. Besides, it seems like at this point you would lose your earnest money deposit if you back out. I do agree with people here though about the potential risk. The only way to make money is if the property appreciates. In Seattle, properties have appreciated like crazy in the past 5 years. Some have even gone up by 3x or 4x of what it was before. If you are right about appreciation in your market, this could be a gold mine. With all investments, there is risk involved. If you do plan to move forward, here are some suggestions: Best of luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a75dc27af5484d1453a016c56df5290b", "text": "\"If you're risking \"\"everything\"\" by buying stock, you shouldn't be buying stock. The employees are the ones who are really at risk. Should the business go belly up, the investors are out some investment money, they'll make more; the employees don't have an income source anymore. CAT may have no legal obligation to pay better than market-wages but if they want to keep their skilled labor from going to competitors, they might want to think about it. You can't build machines without workers. If you have a good product in an established market, you can always get more investors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c931e46f81de6d63fdb5f24ab5231f46", "text": "The only way to hedge a position is to take on a countervailing position with a higher multiplier as any counter position such as a 1:1 inverse ETF will merely cancel out the ETF it is meant to hedge yielding a negative return roughly in the amount of fees & slippage. For true risk-aversion, continually selling the shortest term available covered calls is the only free lunch. A suboptimal version, the CBOE BuyWrite Index, has outperformed its underlying with lower volatility. The second best way is to continually hedge positions with long puts, but this can become very tax-complicated since the hedged positions need to be rebalanced continually and expensive depending on option liquidity. The ideal, assuming no taxes and infinite liquidity, is to sell covered calls when implied volatility is high and buy puts when implied volatility is low.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b1e89b3014e443f50637d2496a2c5b94	Is it possible to split taxation of funds earned from a crowdfunding campaign over multiple years?	[ { "docid": "19f228cae894db3fedd7230e5d7d2fc4", "text": "\"I think you should really start a limited company for this. It'll be a lot simpler to spread the income over multiple years if your business and you have completely separate identities. You should also consult an accountant, if only once to understand the basics of how to approach this. Having a limited company would also mean that if it has financial problems, you don't end up having to pay the debts yourself. With a separate company, you would keep any money raised within the company initially and only pay it to yourself as salary over the three years, so from an income tax point of view you'd only be taxed on it as you received it. The company would also pay for project expenses directly and there wouldn't be any income tax to pay on them at all. You would have to pay other taxes like VAT, but you could choose to register for VAT and then you'd be able to reclaim VAT on the company's expenses but would have to charge VAT to your customers. If you start making enough money (currently £82,000/year) you have to register for VAT whether you want to or not. The only slight complication might be that you could be subject to corporation tax on the surplus money in the first year because it might seem like a profit. However, given that you would presumably have promised something to the funders over a three year period, it should be possible to record your promises as a \"\"liability\"\" for \"\"unearned income\"\" in the company accounts. In effect you'd be saying \"\"although there's still £60,000 in the bank, I have promised to spend it on the crowdfunded thing so it's not profit\"\". Again you should consult an accountant at least over the basics of this.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "db8344437995d7d7ef05aa29fe18db47", "text": "Sorry, it appears not, according to http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2008/508/perspectives/p12.htm: ...and the election to make Roth 401(k) contributions (these are after-tax contributions) is irrevocable. Fairmark says the same thing. PS, don't complain too loudly, given the reason for the problem. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dba9b07b320be09c13482ec51eb32fac", "text": "I think you might be missing something important here. If you are running a business, then any expenses that your business incurs are deductible. Yes, Kickstarter would report the full amount. The IRS requires them to report everything that you raised. However, the Kickstarter and Amazon fees would be a business expense. Your cost on the backer rewards are deductible business expenses as well. Legal fees, accounting fees: deductible. Money that you spend on equipment may not be deductible all in one year; you may have to depreciate it over multiple years. This is where the accountant that you are paying accounting fees to will come in handy. People who do an iOS app Kickstarter campaign for $5000 might have a few things going on that you don't:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81ab7c9d49e66e287f971b92d3c14a58", "text": "?? Edit: that's what I thought. Unless there is some specific tax code that I don't know about, there's no way to pass through money to the next year. But if someone on Reddit is saying something and quoting a tax law, I'd at least like to see it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5d3f0e0a1b880afa3dcb267594e6ea3", "text": "Assuming the US, if a human assessor audited you, could you show a future profit motive or will they conclude you are expensing a hobby? If you answer yes, you are likely to only be deducting limited expenses this year, carrying forward losses to your profitable years. See the examples in pub 535: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch01.html#en_US_2014_publink1000208633", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d6afc3edac4b049f27acdbc504bb8f6", "text": "The $20k limit seems to be (from another answer) the threshold for GoFundMe to report the campaign. However, such a report does not change the taxability of the income. The income is either taxable or non-taxable regardless of whether the amount is $19,999 or $20,001. This is a common misconception, commonly seen when people think that income or gambling winnings are not taxable below $600, when in reality $600 is the threshold for issuing a Form 1099. Given that, it would be foolish to close a wildly successful () GoFundMe campaign, because closing the campaign won't change the taxability of the income. But it will probably cut off the continued donations you may have received. With the amount of money at stake, you should spend the couple hundred dollars to hire a CPA to look at your specific situation. Your uncle's comments are not specific to your situation at best, incorrect at worst, so don't hire him. () I don't know what the median GoFundMe campaign raises, but I strongly suspect it's well below the $20k/200 donor reporting limit. Just because you have one campaign that's gone viral enough to approach that limit, doesn't mean if you close that one and start a new one, that it will go viral again, especially if it's under a new username.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42fa17eeee2c4530a856a6c7776798e8", "text": "\">would this even be possible? Anything is possible, but it would be extremely difficult because of the second question you posed. From my experience, crowd sourcing pools small amounts of money compared to institutional (aka accredited) investors. Not only that, but to lead change, you need people representing the group with deep financial sector experience. A hedge fund that becomes an activist investor (i.e. Third Point) has a decisive plan in place and knows what needs to be accomplished. It will also recommend candidates to replace existing directors that sit on the board. Most \"\"main street\"\" investors don't have what it takes to lead change in any business, let alone financial institutions, which are as complex as a corporation comes. That being said, why would there be a limitation to banks?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f1f658e19c7b94b3ca6f5101aac3daf", "text": "As I understand it, US federal gift tax doesn't kick in at all until one person gives more than about $14,000 in a single year. (So a couple can give someone $28,000.) If you want to give more than that in a lump sum while avoiding gift tax, one workaround is to structure it as an intra-family loan. Basically, you write (and formally register) a loan for the amount, then gift them with up to the limit for them to pay off that loan. The IRS requires that you charge interest on this loan, but the rates are pretty minimal and of course you can incorporate that in the gift. The downside is that the interest income you're required to take is taxable, but that's a comparitively small sum. (On the other hand, if the loan is a mortgage against real property, and properly filed as such, the interest paid may be deductable for the person you're giving the money to.) Doing this properly requires a tax accountant or lawyer who has a clue about the right legalese to make it work. However, there are starting to be some services which specialize in this, doing it for a fixed fee. I used one of those recently, which is why I'm somewhat familiar with this process; they made it about as much of a fill-out-the-forms process as they could, but it still took a few weeks for me to figure out which options were best for my needs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2102f925b4367dbf70ccd460f89ec49d", "text": "In the US the best way to solve the problem, IMHO, would be via a trust. Talk to a properly licensed trust/estate attorney and a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Using intermediary who's not a 501(c) organization may pose income tax issues to that intermediary as providing support to the needy is not a valid business expense. It may also pose gift tax issues, since the aggregate amounts may exceed the statutory exemption limits. Using a (non-revokable) trust you can avoid these issues, but others may come up (such as what to do with the trust income or undistributed moneys). Talk to the advisers about how to avoid them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47d1bf3a9f7853133fac81955ed45b8c", "text": "I think what you're asking is, Can I buy 1000 shares of the stock at $1. For $1000. it goes up to $2, then sell 500 shares of the stock with proceeds of $1000, now having my original $1000 out of it, and still owning 500 shares. And that not create a taxable event. Since all I did was take my cost basis back out, and didn't collect any gains. And then I want to repeat that over and over. Nope, not in the USA anyway. Each sale is a separate taxable event. The first sale will have proceeds of $1000 and a cost basis of $500, with $500 of capital gains, and taxes owed at the time of that sale. The remaining stock will have a cost basis of $500 and proceeds of whatever you sell it for in the future. The next batch of stock will have a cost basis of whatever you pay for it. The only thing that works anything like the way you're thinking, is a Roth IRA... You can put your cost basis in, pull it back out, and put it back in again, all tax free. But every time your cost basis cycles in, that counts towed your contribution limits unless you do it fast enough to call it a rollover.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0604ebabe31f6cf99563c6536cfc95aa", "text": "Regarding the tax implications half of your question ... There seem to be a lot of articles that say there's not yet any established law concerning the tax treatment of crowdsourced funds. Since your objective is gift-giving rather than business purposes, it would seem that the gift tax rules would apply, and gift taxes are charged to the donor not the donee. (But I am not a tax attorney.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82a205531cb4d5990d75ac2f2279f384", "text": "\"Mutual funds don't pay taxes themselves, they distribute any dividends or capital gains to the shareholders. Thus, if you hold a mutual fund in a tax-advantaged account like a 401k or IRA then the distribution isn't a taxable event while in a regular taxable account you would have to pay taxes on the distributions. From Forbes: There can be foreign companies on US stock exchanges that would still work the same way. Unilever for example is an Anglo-Dutch multinational listed on the NYSE as \"\"UN.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "419c2cebfdf3fcf5bc0590e713494556", "text": "I have a CPA. They said that it isn't possible. However, I've seen on message boards that it indeed IS possible, multiple times. I'll likely reach out to another CPA. However, I am interested to hear from somebody who has done this before, so that I at least have a name or defined process for what I'm attempting to do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb34f2e5de976f061f43e82136d3aead", "text": "\"I'm going to post this as an answer because it's from the GoFundMe website, but ultimately even they say to speak with a tax professional about it. Am I responsible for taxes? (US Only) While this is by no means a guarantee, donations on GoFundMe are simply considered to be \"\"personal gifts\"\" which are not, for the most part, taxed as income in the US. However, there may be particular, case-specific instances where the income is taxable (dependent on amounts received and use of the monies, etc.). We're unable to provide specific tax advice since everyone's situation is different and tax rules can change on a yearly basis. We advise that you maintain adequate records of donations received, and consult with your personal tax adviser. Additionally, WePay will not report the funds you collect as earned income. It is up to you (and a tax professional) to determine whether your proceeds represent taxable income. The person who's listed on the WePay account and ultimately receives the funds may be responsible for taxes. Again, every situation is different, so please consult with a tax professional in your area. https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/204295498-Am-I-responsible-for-taxes-US-Only- And here's a blurb from LibertyTax.com which adds to the confusion, but enforces the \"\"speak with a professional\"\" idea: Crowdfunding services have to report to the IRS campaigns that total at least $20,000 and 200 transactions. Money collected from crowdfunding is considered either income or a gift. This is where things get a little tricky. If money donated is not a gift or investment, it is considered taxable income. Even a gift could be subject to the gift tax, but that tax applies only to the gift giver. Non-Taxable Gifts These are donations made without the expectation of getting something in return. Think of all those Patriots’ fans who gave money to GoFundMe to help defray the cost of quarterback Tom Brady’s NFL fine for Deflategate. Those fans aren’t expecting anything in return – except maybe some satisfaction -- so their donations are considered gifts. Under IRS rules, an individual can give another individual a gift of up to $14,000 without tax implications. So, unless a Brady fan is particularly generous, his or her GoFundMe gift won’t be taxed. Taxable Income Now consider that same Brady fan donating $300 to a Patriots’ business venture. If the fan receives stock or equity in the company in return for the donation, this is considered an investment and is not taxable . However, if the business owner does not offer stock or equity in the company, the money donated could be considered business income and the recipient would need to report it on a tax return. https://www.libertytax.com/tax-lounge/two-tax-rules-to-know-before-you-try-kickstarter-or-gofundme/\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6f3af904870fa87141b1519e22bcd73", "text": "Sure.. its possible, its exactly what activist investors do (with institutional money - e.g. pension funds, family foundations). Crowdsourcing probably implies an average <$100 donation per contributor in your mind however, so you'd need a lot of contributors (as opposed to an institution writing a $1B check out of the box) As a benchmark, you can start agitating even without owning shares, but it probably lends credibility to have a few percentage points. As of today, GS's market cap is $46B, JPM's market cap is $122B, BAML's market cap is $77B... so you'd need at least $1B of capital to buy a percentage point or two. At $100 per ticket. that's 10M individual donors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e049953420e0a257e711543060774db", "text": "HMRC calls it: Averaging for creators of literary or artistic works, and it is the averaging of your profits for 2 successive years. It's helpful in situations like you describe, where income can fluctuate wildly from year to year, the linked article has the full detail, but some of the requirements are: You can use averaging if: you’re self-employed or in a partnership, and the business started before 6 April 2014 and didn’t end in the 2015 to 2016 tax year your profits are wholly or mainly from literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works or from designs you or your business partner (if you’re in a partnership) created the works personally. Additionally: Check that your profit for the poorer year, minus any adjusted amounts, is less than 75% of the figure for your better year. If it is, you can use averaging. Then, check if the difference between your profits for the 2 years is more than 30% of your profit for the better year. If it is, work out the average by adding together the profits for the 2 years, and divide the total by 2.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d2bb5fbe8e2400f1b35bf7be3c2cb8a7	Higher auto insurance costs: keep car or switch to public transit?	[ { "docid": "06401fa62af7f32b1642d8d2ea6771fc", "text": "\"Looking at your numbers, I would definitively consider selling the car, and use the public transportation instead. You could easily save $450 month, plus gas and maintenance. As you mentioned, public transportation will be only a fraction of this amount, so you might end up saving around $400 monthly. If you decide to keep the car, the amount that you will spent monthly is easily a payment for a brand-new car. What if, God forbid, for any kind of reason, you get a traffic ticket that can increase your insurance premium? What if the engine stops working, and you will need to spent thousands of dollars fixing the car? With this, and all of the other expenses pilled up, you might be unable to afford all this at some point. If you decide to sell the car, the money that you will save monthly can be put in a savings account (or in any other sort of \"\"safe\"\" investment instrument). In this way, if your situation changes where you need a car again, you will be able to easily afford a new car. Regarding your need to visit your friends on the suburbs every other weekend, I think you can just talk with them, and meet on places where public transportation is available, or ask them to pick you up in the nearest station to the suburbs. In conclusion, based on what you said, I do not think the \"\"little\"\" convenience that you get in owning the car outweighs the big savings that you get monthly, if you decide to sell the car.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5680461d1e37048d549d2fff2ab12f24", "text": "So you will be saving $450 + price of commuting gas - cost of transportation + cost of commuting maintenance - the cost of recreational car rentals if decide to go without a car. For some people that cost is not enough to forego the convenience of owning a car. One factor you have not alluded too is your current financial goals. Are you attempting to live a spartan lifestyle in order to dramatically change your net worth? Give up the car. There really is more then the math you are presenting so the decision is very much based upon your behavior and your goals in life. It is very likely that owning the car will be more expensive, but it will also be less convenient. Is that cost great enough to forego the convenience? Only you can decide.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f06c64f3954dc1ce53ca1017d37773a", "text": "\"I've lived this decision, and from my \"\"anecdata\"\": do #3 I have been car-free since 2011 in a large United States city. I was one month into a new job on a rail line out in the suburbs, and facing a $3000 bill to pass state inspection (the brakes plus the emissions system). I live downtown. I use a combination of transit, a carshare service, and 1-2 day rentals from full service car rental businesses (who have desks at several downtown hotels walking distance from my house). I have not had a car insurance policy since 2011; the carshare includes this and I pay $15 per day for SLI from full service rentals. I routinely ask insurance salesmen to run a quote for a \"\"named non-owner\"\" policy, and would pull the trigger if the premium cost was $300/6 months, to replace the $15/day SLI. It's always quoted higher. In general, our trips have a marginal cost of $40-100. Sure, this can be somewhat discouraging. But we do it for shopping at a warehouse club, visiting parents and friends in the suburbs. Not every weekend, but pretty close. But with use of the various services ~1/weekend, it's come out to $2600 per year. I was in at least $3200 per year operating the car and often more, so there is room for unexpected trips or the occasional taxi ride in cash flow, not to mention the capital cost: I ground the blue book value of the car from $19000 down to $3600 in 11 years. Summary: Pull the trigger, do it :D\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9fbcff82a0a01ff954a2c75351c5c23", "text": "I'm guessing Toronto? Sell the car! Use public transit. Save a ton of money. You can always rent a car for the day or weekend (or use a service like Uber) when necessary at a fraction of the cost of car ownership, and feel good about it!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e401a8ff82d95f592eab06973e952461", "text": "While this question is old and I generally agree with the answers given I think there's another angle that needs a little illuminating: insurance. If you go with an 84 month loan your car will likely be worth less than the amount owed for substantially all of the entire 84 month loan period; this will be exacerbated if you put zero down and include the taxes and fees in the amount borrowed. Your lender will require you to carry full comprehensive/collision/liability coverage likely with a low maximum deductible. While the car is underwater it will probably also be a good idea to carry gap insurance because the last thing you want to do is write a check to your lender to shore up the loan to value deficit if the thing is totaled. These long term car loans (I've seen as high as 96 months) are a bear when it comes to depreciation and related insurance costs. There is more to this decision than the interest calculation. Obviously, if you had the cash at the front of this decision presumably you'll have the cash later to pay off the loan at your convenience. But while the loan is outstanding there are costs beyond interest to consider.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86044438cd8e8eda0053178579e091ae", "text": "\"My wife and I have been car-free since 2011. We spent about $3500 on car shares and rentals last year (I went through it recently to flag trips that were medical transportation and unreimbursed work related for taxes). This compares favorably with the last year of car ownership. I had reached a point I started needing $200+ repairs every couple of months and the straw that broke the camels back was a (dealer mechanic estimate but still) $3000 estimate to pass emissions inspection. Over 11 years the value went from $24000 to $3600, so it depreciated about 2k per year. I was easily spending $40 per week on gasoline on my last commute. I now use transit with the IRS commuter benefit so I do have a base after tax transportation expense of 1200 per year. We use weekend rentals about 2x per month (and do use a warehouse club) She uses rentals for her job about 12 times per year, and the medical transportation came in an intense burst. Access: Our nearest carshare pod is 0.22 miles (3 blocks); there are two hotels with full service rental car desks about half a mile from our house and every brand at the Amtrak station a mile away. There are concrete benefits to density, take every advantage. Insurance: I always take the rental company SLI daily insurance for $15 per day. Certain no annual fee credit cards automatically include CDW. Every time an insurance agent cold calls me, I ask for a quote for a \"\"named non owner\"\" policy, I'd probably take it if the premium was $300 or less per 6 months. Tips and tricks: a carshare minivan or truck rate is probably higher than a carshare car, but compared to a full service rental, may be much lower . The best value I spend no time in my life looking for a parking spot, and spend \"\"this hour\"\" tapping away on SE on a train instead of driving.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f4bc315f09f7f8e774ac7636da8583a", "text": "\"One way to look at insurance is that it replaces an unpredictable expenses with a predictable fees. That is, you pay a set monthly amount (\"\"premium\"\") instead of the sudden costs associated with a collision or other covered event. Insurance works as a business, which means they intend to make a substantial profit for providing that service. They put a lot of effort in to measuring probabilities, and carefully set the premiums to get make a steady profit. The odds are in their favor. You have to ask yourself: if X happened tomorrow, how would I feel about the financial impact? Also, how much will it cost me to buy insurance to cover X? If you have a lot of savings, plenty of available credit, a bright financial future, and you take the bus to work anyway, then totaling your car may not be a big deal, money wise. Skip the insurance. If you have no savings, plenty of debt, little prospects for that improving, and you depend on your car to get to work just so you can pay what you already owe, then totaling your car would probably be a big problem for you. Stick with insurance. There is a middle ground. You can adjust your deductible. Raise it as high as you can comfortably handle. You cover the small stuff out of pocket, and save the insurance for the big ticket items. Insurance companies also invest the money they take as premiums, until they pay out a claim. That's not relevant to this discussion, though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd279259b01d20f763a01c8e1039cfca", "text": "You may not have considered this, and it will depend on your local laws, but if someone causes you damage, you can sue them for the damages. In your case, two drivers forced you to be involved in an accident, which made your premiums go up, which is a real damage for which they might be responsible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c73e81e82c0d59a519f5f9f268ff482b", "text": "You're trading a fixed liability for an unknown liability. When I graduated from college, I bought a nice used car. Two days later, a deer came out of nowhere, and I hit it going 70 mph on a highway. The damage? $4,500. If I didn't have comprehensive insurance, that would have been a real hit to me financially. For me, I'd rather just pay the modest cost for the comprehensive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0986fd839af7054f8dc1c66d227bf882", "text": "The smaller and more quantifiable and consistent risks will probably result (obviously in addition to smaller premiums) in a smaller spread in favor of the insurance company since there is a lot more leverage for companies like Tesla to negotiate with to drive down prices. It may reduce costs for Geico but it sure as hell will reduce profits too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a2d0cb962219105b787335a74806013", "text": "\"Discussions around expected values and risk premiums are very useful, but there's another thing to consider: cash flow. Some individuals have high value assets that are vital to them, such as transportation or housing. The cost of replacing these assets is prohibitive to them: their cashflow means that their rate of saving is too low to accrue a fund large enough to cover the asset's loss. However, their cashflow is such that they can afford insurance. While it may be true that, over time, they would be \"\"better off\"\" saving that money in an asset replacement fund, until that fund reaches a certain level, they are unprotected. Thus, it's not just about being risk averse; there are some very pragmatic reasons why individuals with low disposable income might elect to pay for insurance when they would be financially better off without it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00898fcd7b8859f9e0eda121c1e97619", "text": "Welcome to Money.SE. It appears there's public transportation to get you to work? And the area by your house is walkable? i.e. you and your wife can get groceries and other needs by walking. If it will take 5 years to pay the loans even without a car, how long if you get one? Will you even be able to afford the payments? There's not enough detail here except to say that all purchases aside from true needs have a cost/reward to consider. Whatever the car's total cost is, will it add that much pleasure to your life? People in cities with great transportation save quite a bit on the expenses a car brings. Personal anecdote - Mom lives in a city. She never drives out of the city. Ever. Between insurance, maintenance, and gas, even with low miles, she spends $3000/yr. Once per week, she drives 1500 ft (.3mi) each way to the grocery store. Once every month or 2 to a mall 6 miles away. She can walk and groceries delivered for free. In the end, she spends $250/mo for the feeling of freedom. I get that. When I am 70+, as she is, I will gladly pay car service the $20 to drive me around. You are young, and need to sit with your partner (your wife is your partner in the business of running the family finances, or so I hope) and decide if the benefit is worth the cost. How does she take the kids to a doctor? How do you go out to dinner?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "856ebc015448f3a9c82589737b792e91", "text": "\"If you can afford to replace your car, it is more cost effective, on average and over time, not to carry comprehensive and collision insurance. The insurance companies do make a profit, after all. However, you may be able to worry less (\"\"What if someone steals my car if I park here?\"\") with the insurance, and you have the knowledge the you won't have to spend your own money on a new car if something happens to this one, which may help with financial planning.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33b6f2e8779b315f359445ac5be75ab5", "text": "\"I think the key to this question is your last sentence, because it's applicable to everyone, high net-worth or not: How would one determine whether they are better off without insurance? In general, insurance is a net good when the coverage would prevent a 'catastrophic' event. If a catastrophic event doesn't happen, oh well, you wasted money on insurance. If it does happen, you just saved yourself from bankruptcy. These are two separate outcomes, so taking the 'average' cost of a catastrophic event (and weighing that against the more expensive insurance premiums) is not practical. This is a way of reducing risk, not of maximizing returns. Let the insurance company take the risk - they benefit from having a pool of people paying premiums, and you benefit because your own life has less financial risk. Now for something like cheap home electronics, insurance is a bad idea. This is because you now have a 'pool' of potential risks, and your own life experience could be close to the 'average' expected result. Meaning you'll pay more for insurance than you would just replacing broken things. This answer is another good resource on the topic. So to your question, at what point in terms of net-worth does someone's house become equivalent to you and your toaster? Remember that if you have home fire insurance, you are protecting the value of your house, because that loss would be catastrophic to you. But a high net-worth individual would also likely find the loss of their house catastrophic. Unless they are billionaires with multiple 10M+ mansions, then it is quite likely that regardless of wealth, a significant portion of their worth is tied up in their home. Even 10% of your net worth would be a substantial amount. As an example, would someone worth $1M have only a 100k home? Would someone worth $10M have only a $1M Home? Depends on where they live, and how extravagantly. Similarly, if you were worth $10M, you might not need extra insurance on your Toyota Camry, but you might want it if you drive a $1M Ferrari! Not to mention that things like auto insurance may cover you for liability, which could extend beyond the value of your car, into medical and disability costs for anyone in an accident. In fact, being high net-worth may make you more vulnerable to lawsuits, making this insurance even more important. In addition, high net-worth individuals have insurance that you or I have no need of. Things like kidnapping insurance; business operation insurance, life insurance used to secure bank loans. So yes, even high net-worth individuals may fear catastrophic events, and if they have so much money - why wouldn't they pay to reduce that risk? Insurance provides a service to them the same as to everyone else, it's just that the items they consider too 'cheap' too insure are more expensive than a toaster. Edit to counter concerns in some other answers, which say that insurance is \"\"always a bad idea\"\": Imagine you are in a kafka-esque episode of \"\"Let's Make a Deal\"\". Monty Hall shows you two parallel universes, each with 100 doors. You must choose your universe, then choose a door. The first universe is where you bought insurance, and behind every door is a penalty of $200. The second universe is where you didn't buy insurance, and behind 99 doors is nothing, with one random door containing a penalty of $10,000. On average, playing the game 99,999 times, you will come out ahead 2:1 by not buying insurance. But you play the game only maybe 3 times in your life. So which universe do you choose? Now, you might say \"\"pfft - I can cover the cost of a 10k penalty if it happens\"\". But this is exactly the point - insurance (unless already required by law) is a net good when it covers catastrophic losses. If you are wealthy enough to cover a particular loss, you typically shouldn't buy that insurance. That's why no one should insure their toaster. This is not a question of \"\"average returns\"\", it is a question of \"\"risk reduction\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3d1e961c626c0fa9fd975e9eb47b271", "text": "\"As others have pointed out, it's all about a fixed, small cost versus the potential of a large cost. If you have insurance, you know you will pay a fixed amount per month. There is a 100% probability that you will have to pay this premium. If you don't have insurance, there is a large chance that you will have no cost in any given month, and a small chance that you will have a large cost. Like my home-owners insurance costs me about $50 per month. If I didn't have insurance and my house burned down, I would be out something like $100,000. What's the chance that my house will burn down this month? Very small. But I'd rather pay $50 and not have to worry about it. On the other hand, I just bought a filing cabinet for $160 and the store offered me an \"\"extended warranty\"\" for something like $20 a year. What's the probability that some accident will happen that damages my filing cabinet? Pretty small. Even if it did, I think I could handle shelling out $160. I can imagine my stomach in knots and lying awake at nights worrying about the possibility of losing $100,000 or finding myself homeless. I can't imagine lying awake at nights worrying about losing $160 or being force to stuff my files under the bed. I'll take my chances. When I was young and had even less money than I have now, I bought cars that cost me a thousand dollars or. Even poor as I was, I knew that if the car was totaled I could dig up the cash to buy another. It wasn't worth paying the insurance premium. These days I'm driving a car that cost me $6,000. I have collision and comprehensive insurance, but I think it's debatable. I bought the car with cash to begin with, and if I had to I could scrape up the cash to replace it. Especially considering that my last payment for my daughter's college tuition is due next month and then that expense is gone. :-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a46c54bd1e04b5785a720314fd5d6f80", "text": "Not really. You just pay the other side of payroll taxes your employer typically pays. That's 7.65% more on your net. Not that much, all things considered. Plus, on part time Uber driving, the depreciation deduction on a car should exceed true depreciation costs. Putting 10K more miles on a car each year does not result in that much extra depreciation. 2010 Honda Civic DX Sedan 4D with 100K miles is worth $4,500 in Good condition, according to KBB. With 130K miles, it's worth $3,900. That's a difference of $600, or $0.02 per mile. You'll have more oil changes, brake replacements, gas, and other operating costs. But depreciation is small potatoes compared to the $0.535 in deductions per mile. Edit: If you would own a car regardless of whether or not you drive for Uber, Uber isn't a bad deal. It's a bad deal if you have to buy a car just to drive for Uber. It's all about the marginal cost of a mile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "137304a6d70a9b27ece9809f15ac64d2", "text": "I think your math is fine, and also consider insurance costs and the convenience factor of each scenario. Moving a car frequently to avoid parking tickets will become tedious. I'd rather spend an hour renting a car 20 times in a year rather than have to spend 15 minutes moving a car every three days. And if there's no other easy parking, that 15 minutes can take a lot longer. Plus it'll get dirty sitting there, could get vandalized. Yuck. For only 20 days/year, I don't see how owning a car is worth the hassle. I recommend using a credit card that comes with free car rental insurance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b0fb5cba058c456c114ffc9ce3f7ea1", "text": "\"You have several issues at work. If in the next few years you have a leak in the roof that causes another insurance claim, they may decide not to cover it because they already paid you to replace the roof, and it is your fault that it wasn't. That might also mean they don't pay you for the stuff that is damaged because of the \"\"new\"\" leak. If you minimize the claim that may make it less likely that they will drop you in the future, or increase you rate next year. But if you don't return the excess funds they will evaluate you on the larger claim size. Of course if they are sending the money directly to the repair company they will only pay the bill up to a maximum amount. Usually the issue has been that the repair company wants to do a larger repair. The dispute resolves around some aspect of the building code. I had a car repair that had to be increased because the roof damage was within x inches of the windshield, so the windshield had to be replaced. The insurance company eventually agreed but it slowed down the process for a couple of days because they wanted to measure it. It is possible that the insurance company has rules related to the age of the roof and the amount of damage that triggers a total replacement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6821fb6e4cff1782e53e6c1d8065879", "text": "Watch pawn stars. Whatever someone offers offer 1/3 or less then go up from there. At least that's how to get the number. The rest is having the tact to make someone believe what you are offering is a good deal as that gentlemen clearly demonstrated.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b7f67ca308569cf07bcf7d285ffc93d3	Smartest Place to Put Tax Refund	[ { "docid": "a69695d9a2baa5b76983d167c5eca45e", "text": "\"Congratulations on your graduation and salary. You are in a great career field (I know from experience.) As a background, I would feel pretty confident in your salary as demand for SE is pretty high right now. During my career there were times that demand was pretty to very low. Somehow I survived 2001 & 2002, but 2003 was a pretty rough year for me. Here is what I would do if I were you. Paying off the smallest loans first gives you some great \"\"wind in the sails\"\", and encourages you to keep going. I really like this approach despite being not the most mathematically efficient. I'd reduce my car loan payment back to $200/mo. and put that as the last one to pay off. With the tax refund, and any money left over, I pay off the student loans smallest to largest. I would also consider reducing your savings to something around the 1K->2k range, and use that to pay down debt. If you use your tax refund, and some of the savings you'd have like 34K left to pay off. Could you do that in like 14 months? I think you could depending on your other expenses. No more than 18 months, and if you really worked hard and picked up some work on the side maybe a year. That is what I would do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eef4b7f2d2e5b7f1b43e72f45e7f1298", "text": "\"Welcome to Money.SE. Your question is similar to a number of others. The \"\"How do I pay my debt down?\"\" and \"\"How do I invest extra money?\"\" is a bit of a continuum since there's no consensus than one should pay off the last cent of debt before investing. Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing offers a good look at this. You see, Pete's answer on your question is perfectly fine, but, since you make no mention of, say, a matched 401(k), I'd suggest that any answer to a question like yours should first take a step back and evaluate the bigger picture. A dollar for dollar matched 401(k) beats paying off even an 18% credit card. Absent any tangents, any thought of investing, saving for anything else, etc, my answer is simple, line up the debt, highest interest rate to lowest. Keep in mind the post-tax rate, i.e. a 6% student loan you can deduct, is an effective 4.5% if you are in the 25% bracket.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "56468d9a818c8e7457e3f054891a5673", "text": "I vote for Plan B: PLAN B: Put into 401 K whatever I have in April (will be less than max) and just pay the extra tax. This is path of least resistance and easy but expensive. This plan is the simplest and has the least moving parts. It will be over in April, is easily understood, and does not add extra risk to your life. That being said, the real plan is for next year: save for taxes along the way instead of getting hit with a big bang.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4153a684b44027e27bd1175a20260689", "text": "\"Federal tax refund is taxes you've overpaid. What you're saying is that this year you overpaid less than before. I don't understand why you see this is as a bad thing. Optimal situation is when you have no refunds and no taxes due on tax day, but it is really hard to get there. But the closer you can get - the better, which means that reducing your refund should be your goal. In any case, \"\"Federal Tax Refund\"\" is meaningless, what you need to look at is your actual taxes due. This is the number you should be working to reduce. Is it possible to shift the amounts on a W-2 (with correct adjustments) to tax all of your wages, instead of leaving some of it deducted pre-tax? Why would you want to pay more tax? If your goal is to have a refund (I.e.: it is your way of forcing yourself to save), then you need to recalculate the numbers and adjust your W4 taking the (pre-tax) FSA into account. If it is not the goal, then you should be looking at the total taxes owed, not the refund, and adjust your W4 so that your withholding would cover the taxes owed as closely as possible. And to answer your question, after all this - of course it is possible. But it is wrong, and will indeed likely to trigger an audit. You can write whatever you want on your tax return, but in the end of it, you sign under the penalty of perjury that what you filled is the correct information. Perjury is a Federal felony, and knowingly filing incorrect tax return is fraud (especially since your motive is to gain, even though you're not actually gaining anything). Fraudulent tax returns can be audited any time (no statute of limitations).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b2a62111d39b385d9ff8859503e9856", "text": "\"It depends on when you're setting the goal. 1) When you have finished the year and you are filling out tax forms, your goal is to get as large of a refund as possible. 2) When the year begins afresh and you are earning money and paying taxes, your goal should be roughly to pay exactly the amount of tax owed so that at the end of the year you don't have any refund or tax owed - it's the same as getting your tax refund right away rather than waiting until after you file taxes. So you want your W4 set up appropriately (assuming you're talking about the US). I think (1) is obvious. For (2), imagine you start the year with the goal to get the largest possible tax refund at the end. Well that's simple - fill out the W4 and on line 6 (\"\"Additional amount, if any, you want withheld from each paycheck\"\") tell them to withhold everything. Then at the end of the year you'll get a huge refund. Of course in the meantime, you've made an interest-free loan to the government, and you've probably had to take out a high-interest rate loan from your bank or credit card. Obviously this is bad. An argument could be made that it would be even better to slightly underpay your taxes (but not enough to owe a penalty). Ignoring human weakness, this is correct. If you have the discipline to set that money aside in a safe place, that's okay. If this would cause you to spend that money (or even save less of your other money), then this is a bad idea. So I'd really want to highlight some of this depends on your own financial discipline - is it better for you to have the money right away so that you can make good choices with how to use it now, or is it better for you to put the money somewhere out of reach so that you won't spend it on impulse purchases? (and recognize that there are ways to put it out of reach and earn interest on it rather than spending it - one good choice for you would be a Roth IRA)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bb6162ba093499fdf62d7ca8942e860", "text": "Where you can put the money really depends on your risk tolerance. You could take $50k and put it into a good share class municipal and government bond fund that would likely be tax exempt. In a few years span I don't think you're likely to lose much in a tax-managed bond fund but it's certainly possible! Here is a link for Vanguard tax-exempt bond funds by state of residency: https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/vanguard-mutual-funds-list?assetclass=bond&taxeff=xmpt These funds have returns well exceeding CD's or standard savings accounts. Risk of loss is real, but returns are possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0a18504b9f21acd9a5a4af08801ef1d", "text": "\"Best way to invest around 50k Indian rupees and save Tax There is nothing \"\"Best\"\". There are multiple options that are available under 80C and you need to select one that suites you best. There are market linked options like ELSS, or assured returns like 6 years FD, or PPF or Term Insurance or other such options.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f41d10b3a6a4fd456e5d0be98d54ec20", "text": "The amended return Form 1040x has a different calculation for the `Refund or Amount You Owe' section than the original 1040, you use the amount you owed or amount overpaid from the original return to offset the impact of the amended return. This calculation assumes the refund/payment has been made already. So deposit your refund check, then file the amended return. I suggest filing sooner rather than later in case you owe (unlikely to be penalized unless it's significant/fraudulent), but sooner is better anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45f7684814dbac7f3eed5ce793c0413b", "text": "The purpose of making sure you met the safe harbor was to avoid the penalty. Having achieved that goal the tax law allows you to wait until April 15th to pay the balance. So do so. Put enough money aside to make sure you can easily make that payment. I was in this exact situation a few years ago. I planned my w4 to make the safe harbor, and then slept easy even though the house settlement was in May and I didn't have to make the IRS payment unti 11 months later in April.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e39a1801cbfa777e2fda516c1822da31", "text": "\"It's not quite as bad as the comments indicate. Form 1040ES has been available since January (and IME has been similarly for all past years). It mostly uses the prior year (currently 2016) as the basis, but it does have the updated (2017) figures for items that are automatically adjusted for inflation: bracket points (and thus filing threshhold), standard deductions, Social Security cap, and maybe another one or two I missed. The forms making up the actual return cannot be prepared very far in advance because, as commented, Congress frequently makes changes to tax law well after the year begins, and in some cases right up to Dec. 31. The IRS must start preparing forms and pubs -- and equally important, setting the specifications for software providers like Intuit (TurboTax) and H&RBlock -- several months ahead in order to not seriously delay filing season, and with it refunds, which nearly everyone in the country considers (at least publicly) to be worse than World War Three and the destruction of the Earth by rogue asteroids. I have 1040 series from the last 4 years still on my computer, and the download dates mostly range from late September to mid January. Although one outlier shows the range of possibility: 2013 form 1040 and Schedule A were tweaked in April 2014 because Congress passed a law allowing charitable contributions for Typhoon Haiyan to be deducted in the prior year. Substantive, but relatively minor, changes happen every year, including many that keep recurring like the special (pre-AGI) teacher supplies deduction (\"\"will they or won't they?\"\"), section 179 expensing (changes slightly almost every year), and formerly the IRA-direct-to-charity option (finally made permanent last year). As commented, the current Congress and President were elected on a platform with tax reform as an important element, and they are talking even more intensely than before about doing it, although whether they will actually do anything this year is still uncertain. However, if major reform is done it will almost certainly apply to future years only, and likely only start after a lag of some months to a year. They know it causes chaos for businesses and households alike to upend without advance warning the assumptions built in to current budgets and plans -- and IME as a political matter something that is enacted now and effective fairly soon but not now is just as good (but I think that part is offtopic).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9cb6f639cc02d9fa95f1f7e8dd31186", "text": "Probably the biggest tax-deferment available to US workers is through employee-sponsored investment plans like the 401k. If you meet the income limits, you could also use a Traditional IRA if you do not have a 401k at work. But keep in mind that you are really just deferring taxes here. The US Government will eventually get their due. :) One way which you may find interesting is by using 529 plans, or other college investment plans, to save for your child's (or your) college expenses. Generally, contributions up to a certain amount are deductible on your state taxes, and are exempt from Federal and State taxes when used for qualifying education expenses. The state deduction can lower your taxes and help you save for college for your children, if that is a desire of yours.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "094dc968198d3380a7c3aa6a75e77ac5", "text": "\"A tax return is a document you sign and file with the government to self-report your tax obligations. A tax refund is the payment you receive from the government if your payments into the tax system exceeded your obligations. As others have mentioned, if an extra $2K in income generated $5K in taxes, chances are your return was prepared incorrectly. The selection of an appropriate entity type for your business depends a lot on what you expect to see over the next several years in terms of income and expenses, and the extent to which you want or need to pay for fringe benefits or make pretax retirement contributions from your business income. There are four basic flavors of entity which are available to you: Sole proprietorship. This is the simplest option in terms of tax reporting and paperwork required for ongoing operations. Your net (gross minus expenses) income is added to your wage income and you'll pay tax on the total. If your wage income is less than approximately $100K, you'll also owe self-employment tax of approximately 15% in addition to income tax on your business income. If your business runs at a loss, you can deduct the loss from your other income in calculating your taxable income, though you won't be able to run at a loss indefinitely. You are liable for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of all of your personal assets. Partnership. You will need at least two participants (humans or entities) to form a partnership. Individual items of income and expense are identified on a partnership tax return, and each partner's proportionate share is then reported on the individual partners' tax returns. General partners (who actively participate in the business) also must pay self-employment tax on their earnings below approximately $100K. Each general partner is responsible for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of their personal assets. A general partnership can be created informally or with an oral agreement although that's not a good idea. Corporation. Business entities can be taxed as \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" corporations. Either way, the corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation with a state government (doesn't have to be the state where you live) and corporations are typically required to file yearly entity statements with the state where they were formed as well as all states where they do business. Shareholders are only liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation to the extent of their investment in the corporation. An \"\"S\"\" corporation files an information-only return similar to a partnership which reports items of income and expense, but those items are actually taken into account on the individual tax returns of the shareholders. If an \"\"S\"\" corporation runs at a loss, the losses are deductible against the shareholders' other income. A \"\"C\"\" corporation files a tax return more similar to an individual's. A C corporation calculates and pays its own tax at the corporate level. Payments from the C corporation to individuals are typically taxable as wages (from a tax point of view, it's the same as having a second job) or as dividends, depending on how and why the payments are made. (If they're in exchange for effort and work, they're probably wages - if they're payments of business profits to the business owners, they're probably dividends.) If a C corporation runs at a loss, the loss is not deductible against the shareholders' other income. Fringe benefits such as health insurance for business owners are not deductible as business expenses on the business returns for S corps, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. C corporations can deduct expenses for providing fringe benefits. LLCs don't have a predefined tax treatment - the members or managers of the LLC choose, when the LLC is formed, if they would like to be taxed as a partnership, an S corporation, or as a C corporation. If an LLC is owned by a single person, it can be considered a \"\"disregarded entity\"\" and treated for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship. This option is not available if the LLC has multiple owners. The asset protection provided by the use of an entity depends quite a bit on the source of the claim. If a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on a contract signed on behalf of the entity, then they likely will not be able to \"\"pierce the veil\"\" and collect the entity's debts from the individual owners. On the other hand, if a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on negligence or another tort-like action (such as sexual harassment), then it's very likely that the individual(s) involved will also be sued as individuals, which takes away a lot of the effectiveness of the purported asset protection. The entity-based asset protection is also often unavailable even for contract claims because sophisticated creditors (like banks and landlords) will often insist the the business owners sign a personal guarantee putting their own assets at risk in the event that the business fails to honor its obligations. There's no particular type of entity which will allow you to entirely avoid tax. Most tax planning revolves around characterizing income and expense items in the most favorable ways possible, or around controlling the timing of the appearance of those items on the tax return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fcd316ac05b8ae0bdeabc00453d5ab6", "text": "Wow, hard to believe not a single answer mentioned investing in one of the best asset classes for tax purposes...real estate. Now, I'm not advising you to rush out and buy an investment property. But rather than just dumping your money into mutual funds...over which you have almost 0 control...buy some books on real estate investing. There are plenty of areas to get into, rehabs, single family housing rentals, multifamily, apartments, mobile home parks...and even some of those can have their own specialties. Learn now! And yes, you do have some control over real estate...you control where you buy, so you pick your local market...you can always force appreciation by rehabbing...if you rent, you approve your renters. Compared to a mutual fund run by someone you'll never meet, buying stocks in companies you've likely never even heard of...you have far more control. No matter what area of investing you decide to go into, there is a learning curve...or you will pay a penalty. Go slow, but move forward. Also, all the advice on using your employer's matching (if available) for 401k should be the easiest first step. How do you turn down free money? Besides, the bottom line on your paycheck may not change as much as you think it might...and when weighed against what you get in return...well worth the time to get it setup and active.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29d5fc6040fe343efceb9bc309b9c78e", "text": "If you're maxing out your 401k, just save in tax-efficient investments like stocks and tax efficient funds. If you live in a state with income taxes, look at municipal bond funds for some tax-free income. In 2011, be careful with bond funds and look for short duration funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "614098cccc7c2833b8fc3c2452d2e12c", "text": "\"Ditto @GradeEhBacon, but let me add a couple of comments: But more relevantly: GradeEhBacon mentioned transaction costs. Yes. Many tax shelters require setting up accounts, doing paperwork, etc. Often you have to get a lawyer or accountant to do this right. If the tax shelter could save you $1 million a year in taxes, it makes sense to pay a lawyer $10,000 to set it up right. If it could save you $100 a year in taxes, paying $10,000 to set it up would be foolish. In some cases the tax savings would be so small that it wouldn't be worth the investment of spending $20 on a FedEx package to ship the paperwork. Inconvenience. Arguably this is a special case of transaction costs: the cost of your time. Suppose I knew that a certain tax shelter would save me $100 a year in taxes, but it would take me 20 hours a year to do the paperwork or whatever to manage it. I probably wouldn't bother, because my free time is worth more than $5 an hour to me. If the payoff was bigger or if I was poorer, I might be willing. Complexity. Perhaps a special case of 3. If the rules to manage the tax shelter are complicated, it may not be worth the trouble. You have to spend a bunch of time, and if you do it wrong, you may get audited and slapped with fines and penalties. Even if you do it right, a shelter might increase your chance of being audited, and thus create uncertainty and anxiety. I've never intentionally cheated on my taxes, but every year when I do my taxes I worry, What if I make an honest mistake but the government decides that it's attempted fraud and nails me to the wall? Qualification. Again, as others have noted, tax shelters aren't generally, \"\"if you fill out this form and check box (d) you get 50% off on your taxes\"\". The shelters exist because the government decided that it would be unfair to impose taxes in this particular situation, or that giving a tax break encourages investment, or some other worthy goal. (Sometimes that worthy goal is \"\"pay off my campaign contributors\"\", but that's another subject.) The rules may have unintended loopholes, but any truly gaping ones tend to get plugged. So if, say, they say that you get a special tax break for investing in medical research, you can't just declare that your cigarette and whiskey purchases are medical research and claim the tax break. Or you talked about off-shore tax havens. The idea here is that the US government cannot tax income earned in another country and that has never even entered the US. If you make $10 in France and deposit it in a French bank account and spend it in France, the US can't tax that. So American companies sometimes set up bank accounts outside the US to hold income earned outside the US, so they don't have to bring it into the US and pay the high US tax rate. (US corporate taxes are now the highest of any industrialized country.) You could, I suppose, open an account in the Caymans and deposit the income you earned from your US job there. But if the money was earned in the US, working at a factory or office in the US, by a person living in the US, the IRS is not going to accept that this is foreign income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83b0ba3e5841488f99a591f1984b9dc7", "text": "\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \"\"social security lockbox\"\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \"\"rob\"\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c9742fdc9f1838021e9391b7022be4c", "text": "My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8eac1787d6f739afb8e2a9c0c4837f07	Should I sell a 2nd home, or rent it out?	[ { "docid": "6f663ad4ec7451b19430e6e659f58d06", "text": "\"So here are some of the risks of renting a property: Plus the \"\"normal\"\" risk of losing your job, health, etc., but those are going to be bad whether you had the rental or not, so those aren't really a factor. Can you beat the average gain of the S&P 500 over 10 years? Probably, but there's significant risk that something bad will happen that could cause the whole thing to come crashing down. How many months can you go without the rental income before you can't pay all three mortgages? Is that a risk you're willing to take for $5,000 per year or less? If the second home was paid for with cash, AND you could pay the first mortgage with your income, then you'd be in a much better situation to have a rental property. The fact that the property is significantly leveraged means that any unfortunate event could put you in a serious financial bind, and makes me say that you should sell the rental, get your first mortgage paid down as soon as possible, and start saving cash to buy rental property if that's what you want to invest in. I think we could go at least 24 months with no rental income Well that means that you have about $36k in an emergency fund, which makes me a little more comfortable with a rental, but that's still a LOT of debt spread across two houses. Another way to think about it: If you just had your main house with a $600k mortgage (and no HELOC), would you take out a $76k HELOC and buy the second house with a $200k mortgage?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dca1a33a7f94d8ef59daa6de936c28c3", "text": "\"If it was me, I would sell the house and use the proceeds to work on/pay off the second. You don't speak to your income, but it must be pretty darn healthy to convince someone to lend you ~$809K on two homes. Given this situation, I am not sure what income I would have to have to feel comfortable. I am thinking around 500K/year would start to make me feel okay, but I would probably want it higher than that. think I can rent out the 1st house for $1500, and after property management fees, take home about $435 per month. That is not including any additional taxes on that income, or deductions based on repair work, etc. So this is why. Given that your income is probably pretty high, would something less than $435 really move your net worth needle? No. It is worth the reduction in risk to give up that amount of \"\"passive\"\" income. Keeping the home opens you up to all kinds of risk. Your $435 per month could easily evaporate into something negative given taxes, likely rise in insurance rates and repairs. You have a great shovel to build wealth there is no reason to assume this kind of exposure. You will become wealthy if you invest and work to reduce your debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c6049b7f0f02c8b3d88fd94a38a84ea", "text": "I kind of hate piling on with another opinion, but this is too long for a comment. I did what you are thinking of doing, I would at least try renting it for a couple years so long as: The primary risks of renting are mostly related to unexpected costs and bad tenants, you've got a very healthy income, so as long as you maintain a nice emergency fund it doesn't sound like keeping this property as a rental will be too much risk. If the rental market is strong where your house is, then you have a better chance of avoiding bad tenants. I like to keep my rent a little lower than the max I think it could go for, to attract more applications and hopefully find someone who will be a good longer term tenant. Tax-free gains So long as you lived in your house 2 of the last 5 years, you can sell without paying capital gains tax on your profit, so you could try renting it for 2 years and then sell. That was a key for me when I converted my first house to a rental. I liked that flexibility, there's still the typical renting risks associated, but it's not a lifelong commitment. You can get 2 years of increased equity/appreciation tax-free, or you could find you enjoy it and keep it for the long haul.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bc46add7bfe3ee10ee4eb7f944b698a", "text": "It sounds like you plan to sell sooner or later. If your opinion is that there is still room for the housing market to grow, make your bet and sell later. The real estate market is much less liquid than other markets you might be invested in, so if you do end up seeing trouble (another housing crash) you may be stuck with your investment for longer than you hoped. I see more risk renting the house out, but I don't see significantly more reward. If you are comfortable with the risk, by all means proceed with your plan to rent. My opinion is contrary to many others here who think real estate investments are more desirable because the returns are less abstract (you can collect the rent directly from your tenants) but all investments are fraught with their own risks. If you like putting in a little sweat equity (doing your own repairs when things break at your rental) renting may be a good match for you. I prefer investments that don't require as much attention, and index funds certainly fit that bill for me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f796d5c8aa19f1d95d5f4880474445de", "text": "One piece of information you didn't mention is how much you paid for the original home. If you hold onto that home for too long you will have to pay capital gains on the difference between sale price and original price. This can be a TON of money, thousands of dollars easily. The rule is: If you lived in a home for 2 out of the past 5 years, you don't have to pay the capital gains tax. So if you just moved, you have 3 years to sell. Perhaps as a compromise you can try renting it for 3 years and then selling it a few months before the deadline.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c3af0fe71d914d59ad6bde90873c13a", "text": "Option A - you sell the house and then use the money to pay off a portion of your second mortgage. The return on that investment is 5.5% a year, or $1925 net. Option B - you rent it out, that will bring you $5220 (435 x 12), more than 2.5 times option A. That's not counting any money going towards the principal of the loan. Given that you'll be using a property management company, you can be fairly certain that there won't be any unexpected expenses (credit check, security deposit should take care of that) Option C - you invest the money somewhere else. You'll have to get 15% return in order to beat option B. I don't think that's sustainable. You should talk to a CPA about the tax implications, but I'm fairly certain that you'll do better tax wise to rent it out, since you can use depreciation to lower your tax bill. Finally, where do you think real estate prices will be in 4 years? If you think they'll increase that's another reason to hold onto the property and rent it. Finally finally, if you plan to rent it out long term (over 4 years), it will be a good idea to refinance and lock the current interest rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bf73b238c6ad2fa9b4ff03f17980a81", "text": "\"Another factor is, how far is your prospective rental property from where you live? vs. how comprehensive is your property management service? If you need to visit much or would simply like to keep an eye on it, a couple of hours drive could be a deal breaker. One more thought; would you be able to upgrade the property at a profit when it comes time to sell? If you have a realtor you trust he or she should be able to tell you if, say a $20k kitchen reno would reliably return more than $20k. It has a lot to do with the property's relative price position in the neighborhood. A cheaper home has more \"\"upsell\"\" room.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fe05922ce9a0da7256cad78465a37d4", "text": "If you can generate a higher ROI by renting than by cashing out and investing, then you should rent it out. Please consider your risk tolerance as well. It's always a personal decision whether to assume higher risk for a higher return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eed532144938a0446170198dc5d2e6cc", "text": "I don't see anything in this forum on the leverage aspect, so I'll toss that out for discussion. Using generic numbers, say you make a $10k down payment on a $100,000 house. The house appreciates 3% per year. First year, it's $103,000. Second year, $106090, third it's 109,272.70. (Assuming straight line appreciation.) End of three years, you've made $9,272.70 on your initial $10,000 investment, assuming you have managed the property well enough to have a neutral or positive cash flow. You can claim depreciation of the property over those rental years, which could help your tax situation. Of course, if you sell, closing costs will be a big factor. Plus... after three years, the dreaded capital gains tax jumps in as mentioned earlier, unless you do a 1031 exchange to defer it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b50f43e5a7eefb771bcd826a71b5627", "text": "Heres what you need to know: This can be prevented by what a previous renter did to us. This is a smart, kind of a jerky way to do it but its VERY SMART, as long as your property is worth it, raise the rent higher. You must have a very nice, clean, everything working, house. You must be willing to have anything fixed. this is all to make up the high rent. You don't want the rent way out of proportion but just a bit higher. This is because, more than likely, people who are going to pay for a higher rent don't usually leave a mess, (higher class families vs lower class people living alone..) What might also help from the risk of damage is create a fee (also what my renter did) of any painting needed done like finger prints on the wall, nails in the wall, carpet stains, etc when the tenant is ready to move out. I would suggest a required professional carpet cleaning as well when lease is up. My renter was very nice, but very strict and did all these things. He has a few properties that are very nice middle class houses. Your home sounds like it could easily pass for this kind of business depending on where you live. If the tenant leaves before his lease is up you could charge a 1-2 month's rent to be able to find a new tenant. Be proactive on finding a tenant before the lease is up. This would be a bit of work to first set up and usually maintain, but its a good thing to think about.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "145e74fa3efcff20e658426555ae1a21", "text": "In most cases my preference would be to buy. However, if you intend to sell after just one year I would maybe lean towards renting. You haven't included buying and selling cost into your equation nor any property taxes, and as John Bensin suggests, maintenance costs. If you were looking to hold the property for at least 5 years, 10 years or more, then if the numbers stood up, I would defiantly go with the buy option. You can rent it out after you move out and if the rent is higher than your total expenses in holding the property, you could rely on some extra passive income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b325654181d951f0e841dc9a11bba72", "text": "Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74b0945decbe90d6bd5ec3b69427a43e", "text": "\"The perceived risk depends on the entire situation, but often it is considered more risk, especially if you want to occupy yourself. Things you need to consider: It can be very difficult to show a property with tenants occupying it. There are many reasons for this and most homes show / sell better empty. I have found many tenants make it difficult on the seller. Leaving their areas a mess, being unaccommodating and especially in markets that are flooded with options, a lot of buyers just won't bother with the difficulty of scheduling a showing in occupied properties. I've tried to purchase many properties where the renter insists on being there during a showing, but won't open the door and there's no recourse for the landlord because his lease or laws in the area don't allow you to enter without permission. Also, it can be difficult to look past a lot of clutter and other people's decorating and aroma \"\"preferences\"\" to be kind. :) Is the property currently under lease and what is the period of that lease? It could be that the lease is month to month, or it could be years remaining on the lease period. It is likely a legal requirement in most areas that you honor the existing lease. I would never buy a property that has multiple years remaining. While some amateur landlords will allow 2 or even 5 year leases, this is a very bad idea for many reasons! What are laws like in your area for evicting tenants? You should know this regardless of whether or not you intend to occupy or keep it a rental. It can be a very difficult process evicting tenants and this process is vastly different from country to country and state to state here in the USA. Look into the security deposit - assuming there is one. How much is the deposit? Will it cover damage that may not exist yet? Don't think that just because you plan on evicting them soon, it isn't important. People can trash a place on the way out and an expensive lawsuit could be your only recourse. It is far easier to take a deposit than sue. I would absolutely demand that the deposit transfer to you upon sale. View the current renters with a fresh eye. Especially if you are considering leave it a rental, look into all of the typical requirements: Their monthly income, their credit history, their criminal record, their payment history, their references. Are they likely to be good or terrible renters? If you're interested in the property, consider an offer which requires the current landlord to evict within the time-frame of the buy/sell agreement. This isn't an uncommon requirement. I think the first thing to do is go look at the property and see if you can determine for yourself why it hasn't sold yet. Properties all have different reasons for not selling in a reasonable time to the local market. Having renters alone in most markets shouldn't be that big of a factor. I would suspect bad smells, nasty renters, or an unfavorable lease agreement exists.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48afeed212c2d44d7878e3a0f08b085b", "text": "\"I'd probably say \"\"buy\"\" for most situations. Unless you have a long-term lease, you're going to be saddled with elastic/rising rents if the market tightens up, while with a purchase you usually have fixed expenses (with the exception of property taxes/condo fees) and you are gaining equity. As I've gotten older, the prospect of moving is more and more daunting. The prospect of being essentially kicked out of my home when the landlord decides to sell the property or raise the rent is a turn-off to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "200f8c5f2b1d4a058debac7f16934960", "text": "\"I think you may have a significant misunderstanding here. You have been renting your property out for two years, now. There is no special \"\"roommate\"\" clause in the tax code; roommates are renters, and the rent they pay is rental income. (If they were roommates in a property you both rented from a third party, that would be different.) See publication 527, chapter 4 for more details on the subject (search on \"\"Renting Part of Property\"\"). You should be: You may also consider \"\"Not renting for profit\"\" section, which may be closer to what you're actually thinking - of changing from \"\"Renting not for profit\"\" to \"\"Renting for profit\"\". Not rented for profit means you can report on your 1040 as opposed to filing Schedule E, but it does mean you have to actually not make a profit (and remember, some of the money that goes to paying the mortgage is not deductible on this side of things since it's your property and you'll get that money back, presumably, when you sell it). If that is what you're asking about, it sounds like it's just a matter of money. Are you going to start making money? Or, are you going to start making enough significant upgrades/etc. to justify the tax deduction? You should consider the actual, specific numbers carefully, probably with the help of a CPA who is familiar with this sort of situation, and then make the decision that gives you the best outcome (keeping in mind that there may be long-term impacts of switching from not-for-profit to for-profit rental treatment).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69d19386ba55f04469002b731d939674", "text": "Buy a rental property instead. You get tax benefits as well as passive income. And it pays for itself", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c83a16dae83b4e8deba713a10e4b6ad", "text": "You may be in a situation where buying is preferred, especially because you can enter the market in a strong position - with a 20% down payment. If you have the financial ability to assume the risk of owning, you may be better off. I would consider two things. Renting is purchasing a service. You are buying the flexibility to move with minimum hassle and the landlord is assuming the risk of owning the asset (property). They will make money on you, like any service provider. Buying is purchasing an asset. You are buying the underlying asset and assume all the risks associated with it. This is large, unforeseen maintenance, fees, taxes, depreciation, etc... Some of these risks were passed to you as a renter, but some were not. Just like purchasing $400k in stock, if you have to sell when the market is down, you lose big. You win if you can hold. Unlike a stock, real estate will eat your cash in taxes and repairs unless it is rented. If you are willing to be a long-distance landlord, this may work out. Understand that property management fees will eat into your rent income and being long-distance will give more potential for a bad tenant to ruin your property value. These and other factors (e.g. vacancy rate) will increase your risk of loss and should be considered. Some of this will be your preference, since you will spend much more time dealing with buying/selling/property management as opposed to a more clean rental situation. Is this hassle worth the savings? For many, yes; others, no. Finally, I hope this calculator can help clarify some of the financial aspects for you. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 Good Luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b42ebcdd817bf7b9434cd9c1cf664ecf", "text": "It depends where you are going to live and how you are going to pay for your new accommodation. If you are moving within the UK and intend to buy another house you run into the problem that you will find it hard to get a second mortgage. If you rent out the house in Kent you will probably have to change the mortgage basis on it to a mortgage that allows for letting - normal residential mortgages exclude that entirely - which would allow you to take out a residential mortgage. It depends how much equity you have in the house. If most of the value of the house is mortgaged then you'll (1) find it hard to re mortgage on a commercial mortgage (2) may find it hard to cover the costs by letting and (3) are very sensitive to house prices falling. Also bear in mind that for the past three months in a row, house prices in the UK have mostly either stagnated or fallen... so you cannot guarantee any increase in value of the house in Kent. What I'm saying is ... there is no crystal ball that will tell you what's financially the best thing to do. Talk to estate agents, find out how much the house would sell for / how much it would rent for. Talk to your mortgage lender and find out if they will let you rent it out. Talk to other mortgage lenders and find out how much a commercial mortgage would cost. Do the sums, find out if renting the house would cover the costs, in which case you can gamble on the housing market continuing to rise. Don't rely on house prices continuing to rise as they have done before. Certainly where I live due to the number of new houses being built and other economic issues house prices have fallen appreciably over the past few months and may well continue to fall as more and more new houses come on the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1018d9e6c1f99370dcffd85bd768bfaf", "text": "To your secondary question: Appropriately consider all estimated numbers involved with keeping the house compared to your closest estimate of what the home could sell for. Weigh out the pros and cons yourself as a stranger will not be able to 100% appreciate what you value and dislike. Remember to include insurances, taxes, HOA(s), and the actual mortgage payment. Depending on how you also plan to rent out the property, include whichever utilities you intend to cover (if any). There will also be costs for property management and upkeep as things will break overtime and tenants will not hesitate to get you (or your management) to fix them, either way that means you are paying. I would also keep in mind while homes typically appreciate in value there is a higher risk with tenants for the value to depreciate to damages and poor upkeep. There are increased legal risks to renting, so be sure you have properly vetted whichever management you are going with. In extreme circumstances you also could be required to retain an attorney to defend yourself again litigation because whichever management team you hire will most likely defend themselves and not include you in that umbrella. My family lives in the LA area as well and a judge refused to throw out an obvious frivolous suit when my parents attempted to rent out a house. The possible renters after signing the main paperwork never showed to finish a second set of documents for renting. Parents immediately declined to rent to these people as they missed something so important without any explanation and they sued claiming racism, emotional damages, and some other really crazy things despite my parents never having met them (first meeting was between property management and renters only). Personally and professionally, I would only suggest renting our the place and not selling if you can turn a profit after all the above mentioned costs. If renters are only paying to keep the property in the black you have yourself a non-earning asset which WILL be damaged over time and require repairs which will come out of your pocket. Also, while the property is unoccupied you also must remember it is not earning at that time. Much of this may sound obvious, overcautious, etc... I simply wish to provide my family's experience to help you in making your decisions. Best of luck with your endeavor. Edit: Also, you will be required to report all earned rental income on your taxes. They will fall under the Schedule E and possibly K-1 area. I would strongly recommend consulting with an actual accountant about the impacts to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7215711b43fcc03e06efa82951c8d1c", "text": "When looking at buying and selling, you really need to look at the overall picture for the short term. What would the closing cost be? Would you pay a buyers agent, or use the sellers? Loan generation fees? All of these would add up, and would affect you timeline adversely. You are currently comparing you rent, versus your plain mortgage and taxes. You're missing the losses you could possibly incur, if you do not stay int he home for the long term. You also have to rememberer the possibility of the property not renting long term, can you swing two mortgages? Or a mortgage and a rent check?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87391b5769bbc4e6cf5227334a5e7922", "text": "Your calculations are good as far as they go, but there are lots of other factors and pros and cons to each decision. Yes, you should certainly compare the monthly rent to what your mortgage payments would be, as you have done. Yes, you should consider how long you might live there. If you do move out, how difficult will it be to sell the house, given market conditions in your area? If you try to rent it, how difficult is it to find a tenant, and what rent could you expect to receive? Speaking of moving out and renting the place: Who will manage the property and do maintenance? Would you still be close enough to do this yourself? Would you be willing and able to spend the time? Or would you have to hire someone? Also, what if the tenant does not pay the rent? How difficult is it to evict someone in your area? Speaking from personal experience, I own a rental property in Ohio, and the law says you can evict someone with 3 days notice. But in practice they don't just leave, so then you have to take them to court. It takes months to get a court date and months longer before the police actually show up to order them out of the house. And you have to pay the lawyer and court fees. In that time they're living in your property rent free. In my case one tenant also totally trashed the place and stole everything that wasn't nailed down -- I had to spend $13,000 on repairs to a house worth a fraction of what you're talking about. Being a landlord is NOT just a matter of sitting back and collecting rent checks: there's a fair amount of work and a lot of risk. What do you have to pay the realtor, and what other closing costs would you have to pay? Where I live, realtors typically charge 6 to 7%. You may also have to pay for an appraisal, title search, and bunch of other little fees. Mortgage interest is deductible on your federal income taxes. Rent is not. If you own and something needs to be repaired, you have to pay for it. If you rent, the landlord has to pay for it. If you own, you can do pretty much what you like with the property -- subject to zoning ordinances and building codes and maybe homeowners association rules, but you should have a pretty good amount of leeway. If you want to install ceiling fans or remodel the kitchen or add a deck, it's up to you. If you're renting, it's up to the landlord to decide what you can do to the property. And if he agrees to let you do some upgrade, when you're done, it belongs to him. With a condo, you are not usually responsible for exterior maintenance, like mowing the lawn and trimming the bushes and washing the outer walls. With a house, you are. You might pay someone to do this, which adds to the cost, or you might do it yourself, which takes time. Insurance on a condo or aparment is much less than insurance on a house. In my area, anyway. You should investigate those costs. If you buy, eventually you own the place and don't have to pay a mortgage any more. If you rent, you continue to pay forever. (Even if you don't live in the same house forever, as long as you don't take a terrible loss when you sell you should then have some money left over to apply to the next house, so you are still building equity.) Some of these pros and cons are easily quantifiable. Others are probabilities, like how likely is it that your water heater will fail?, and how long is it likely to take to find a buyer if you want to sell? And others are pretty subjective.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "496e0ec9a2b13a0208e09f1b8979758a", "text": "It is fine to think about options you may have when X to Y years down the road you move out of the condo. The reason you move may be kids, or job opportunities, or a shorter commute, or wanting to move back to Germany. The thing is that nobody can tell you what the investment situation may be when you move out of the unit. You may want to sell, you may need to sell; but the market may say no way to sell and get back what you owe - so you have to become a landlord. Or the prices could go through the roof, and selling makes the most sense. In those ten years the local market could crater because the water system is full of lead (see Flint Michigan), or the biggest industry moves. Other bad things could be overbuilding so that there are too many condos on the market. On the good side the neighborhood could become the place that young people graduating college in the mid 2020s want to live. Of course you can't ask them because they are currently in 6th grade. Decide what make sense for you now. What is the likelihood that you will have to move in 2-3 years. What about 3-7 years. I would only start evaluating the investment part if I had lived there awhile and now had to plan what to do when we are ready to move out a year or two from then.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9362cd4c4dfd4c31b93d8e745b08a7c", "text": "\"Do you still enjoy living in your home? Can you afford the mortgage payments? Is there a reason for you to move, such as a relocation for work, or your third kid is on the way and your current house is already crowded with two? Those questions are more important than \"\"Is my home worth more than what I owe on it\"\". Ultimately, it's your home. You probably chose it for more than just its price, and those qualities should still make it valuable to you in some way beyond the monetary value which goes up and down with the market. You have a few options:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c85b73eb81446ba89b3ae191aac44b1", "text": "Because it appears you have in the neighborhood of 30 years remianing on your mortgage for the first house, If you can sell it you will likely be better off in the end. While renting has the potential for greater income it is a business. And like any business there are risks, expenses, and work required to make it successful. There will be times where you can not find a renter immediately and will be responsible for making both payments, maintaining both houses, the insurance(which for an owner is higher for a rental property than a domicile), and paying the applicable taxes. You need to look at your best and worst case numbers. If your best case numbers leave you in the hole 300/month then that is not the sort of business you want to run. Your investment should build your savings and retirement funds not deplete them. Further you are more likely to fall between your best and worst case scenerios. So you need to be able to thrive at that level. If something in the middle is going to take you into bankruptcy then sell the property. If you are not willing to put the time into your business that it will need (My rental home took about 10-30 hours a month despite renters being responsible for basic upkeep and maintenance. Finally your plan B: A home with 800k value will have higher costs and higer expenses and maintenance. If the 800k home is the home you and your family needs then by all means go for it. But if it can do just as well in the 450k Home then go there. Pay the home off early by making the payments you would be making for the 800k home. In this way you pay less in total cost of the home and set your self up for the greatest chance of success. Once that home is paid off the break even point for renting goes way down as well. So the rental option could be in the future. I would just aviod it now if possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5334ecb10e7edc640226aeaf0b65475b", "text": "\"I'm a little confused on the use of the property today. Is this place going to be a personal residence for you for now and become a rental later (after the mortgage is paid off)? It does make a difference. If you can buy the house and a 100% LTV loan would cost less than 125% of comparable rent ... then buy the house, put as little of your own cash into it as possible and stretch the terms as long as possible. Scott W is correct on a number of counts. The \"\"cost\"\" of the mortgage is the after tax cost of the payments and when that money is put to work in a well-managed portfolio, it should do better over the long haul. Don't try for big gains because doing so adds to the risk that you'll end up worse off. If you borrow money at an after-tax cost of 4% and make 6% after taxes ... you end up ahead and build wealth. A vast majority of the wealthiest people use this arbitrage to continue to build wealth. They have plenty of money to pay off mortgages, but choose not to. $200,000 at 2% is an extra $4000 per year. Compounded at a 7% rate ... it adds up to $180k after 20 years ... not exactly chump change. Money in an investment account is accessible when you need it. Money in home equity is not, has a zero rate of return (before inflation) and is not accessible except through another loan at the bank's whim. If you lose your job and your home is close to paid off but isn't yet, you could have a serious liquidity issue. NOW ... if a 100% mortgage would cost MORE than 125% of comparable rent, then there should be no deal. You are looking at a crappy investment. It is cheaper and better just to rent. I don't care if prices are going up right now. Prices move around. Just because Canada hasn't seen the value drops like in the US so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. If comparable rents don't validate the price with a good margin for profit for an investor, then prices are frothy and cannot be trusted and you should lower your monthly costs by renting rather than buying. That $350 per month you could save in \"\"rent\"\" adds up just as much as the $4000 per year in arbitrage. For rentals, you should only pull the trigger when you can do the purchase without leverage and STILL get a 10% CAP rate or higher (rate of return after taxes, insurance and other fixed costs). That way if the rental rates drop (and again that is quite possible), you would lose some of your profit but not all of it. If you leverage the property, there is a high probability that you could wind up losing money as rents fall and you have to cover the mortgage out of nonexistent cash flow. I know somebody is going to say, \"\"But John, 10% CAP on rental real estate? That's just not possible around here.\"\" That may be the case. It IS possible somewhere. I have clients buying property in Arizona, New Mexico, Alberta, Michigan and even California who are finding 10% CAP rate properties. They do exist. They just aren't everywhere. If you want to add leverage to the rental picture to improve the return, then do so understanding the risks. He who lives by the leverage sword, dies by the leverage sword. Down here in the US, the real estate market is littered with corpses of people who thought they could handle that leverage sword. It is a gory, ugly mess.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
fb2c5f7dfe9225cf9f2d8bdde9791f96	How companies choose earnings release dates, & effect on Implied Volatility	[ { "docid": "2355711bff861b12e2713816121c028b", "text": "\"I can't speak authoritatively to your broader question about stocks in general, but in several years tracking AAPL closely, I can tell you that there's little apparent pattern to when their earnings call will be, or when it will be announced. What little I do know: - AAPL's calls tend to occur on a Tuesday more than any other day of the week - it's announced roughly a month in advance, but has been announced w/ less notice - it has a definite range of dates in which it occurs, typically somewhere in the 3rd week of the new quarter plus or minus a few days More broadly for #1: Given the underlying nature of what an option is, then yes, the day an earnings call date is announced could certainly influence the IV/price of options - but only for options that expire inside the \"\"grey area\"\" (~2 weeks long) window in which the call could potentially occur. Options expiring outside that grey area should experience little to no price change in reaction to the announcement of the date - unless the date was itself surprising, e.g. an earlier date would increase the premium on earlier dated options, a later date would increase the premium for later-dated options. As for #2: The exact date will probably always be a mystery, but the main factors are: - the historical pattern of earnings call dates (and announcements of those dates) which you can look up for any given company - when the company's quarter ends - potentially some influence in how long it takes the company to close out their books for the quarter (some types of businesses would be faster than others) - any special considerations for this particular quarter that affect reporting ability And finally: - a surprise of an earnings call occurring (substantively) later than usual is rarely going to be a good sign for the underlying security, and the expectation of catastrophe - while cratering the underlying - may also cause a disproportionate rise in IVs/prices due to fear\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "46985454ed5256255c157beed1491d00", "text": "\"At the most fundamental level, every market is comprised of buyers and selling trading securities. These buyers and sellers decide what and how to trade based on the probability of future events, as they see it. That's a simple statement, but an example demonstrates how complicated it can be. Picture a company that's about to announce earnings. Some investors/traders (from here on, \"\"agents\"\") will have purchased the company's stock a while ago, with the expectation that the company will have strong earnings and grow going forward. Other agents will have sold the stock short, bought put options, etc. with the expectation that the company won't do as well in the future. Still others may be unsure about the future of the company, but still expecting a lot of volatility around the earnings announcement, so they'll have bought/sold the stock, options, futures, etc. to take advantage of that volatility. All of these various predictions, expectations, etc. factor into what agents are bidding and asking for the stock, its associated derivatives, and other securities, which in turn determines its price (along with overall economic factors, like the sector's performance, interest rates, etc.) It can be very difficult to determine exactly how markets are factoring in information about an event, though. Take the example in your question. The article states that if market expectations of higher interest rates tightened credit conditions... In this case, lenders could expect higher interest rates in the future, so they may be less willing to lend money now because they expect to earn a higher interest rate in the future. You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future. Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth. Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34cde1e8bd12eb8855f66997fb014b0c", "text": "Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company. Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c189277f36f28c2d2c117dbfbf90c88c", "text": "\"Systemic and well know patterns in sales are priced in to the security. Typically companies with very cyclical earnings like this will issue guidance of earnings per share within a range. These expected earnings are priced in before the earnings are actually booked. If a company meets these expectations the stock will likely stay relatively flat. If the company misses this expectation, the stock, generally, will get slammed. This kind of Wall Street behavior typically mystifies media outlets when a company's stock declines after reporting a record high level of whatever metric. The record high is irrelevant if it misses the expectation. There is no crystal ball but if something is both well known and expected it's already been \"\"priced in.\"\" If the well known expected event doesn't occur, maybe it's a new normal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d1e4f769f70b26fe26acd9c641ce885", "text": "Personally, I use the earlier date in Quicken so that it looks like I lose money earlier. This isn't 100% accurate, but it keeps me from thinking my accounts have more money than they would otherwise have.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fd5110b577f8fb73db726ebc20f4885", "text": "In the equity world, if a stock trades at 110 and is going to pay a dividend of 10 in a few days, an option expiring after the ex date would take the dividend into account and would trade as if the stock were trading at 100. (Negative) interest rates may also lead to a similar effect. In the commodity world the cost of carry needs to be taken into account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "966f5f6dfd5cf39b9a1c72a734924277", "text": "\"Currently, when \"\"implied volatility\"\" is spoken, the Black-Scholes-Merton model is implied. This model has been shown to be deficient, thus the Variance Gamma Model should be used. However, as nearly no one uses VG, it can be assumed that BS is still being implied. The BS formula has multiple variables. Some are external to the underlying in question. The rest are internal. When all but one variable is known or assumed, the last variable can be calculated, so if one has the price of the underlying and all else except the volatility, the volatility can be calculated thus implied. If one selects an implied volatility, and all variables except the underlying price is known, the underlying price can be calculated. For the present, one uses the current price of the underlying to calculate the implied volatility. For future option prices, one assumes an implied volatility at a later date to calculate a possible price. For prices not at the money, the BS model is extremely imprecise. The VG model can better determine a potential future price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f591963899eb4a32562e19cb18bcc65", "text": "\"Why do stock markets allow these differences in reporting? The IRS allows businesses to use fiscal calendars that differ from the calendar year. There are a number of reasons a company would choose do this, from preferring to avoid an accounting rush at end of year during holiday season, to aligning with seasonality for their profits (some like to have Q4 as the strongest quarter). Smaller businesses may prefer to keep the extra stress of year end closeout to a traditionally slower time for the business, and some just start their fiscal calendar when the company starts up. You'll notice the report dates are a couple weeks after fiscal quarter end, you would read it as \"\"three months ended...,\"\" so for Agilent, three months ended October 31, 2017, so August, September, October are their Q4 months.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b91ea9ba00641d019c71d2986da2f19", "text": "the financial information is generally filed via SEDAR (Canada) or SEC (US) before the conference call with the investment community. This can take before either before the market opens or after the market closes. The information is generally distribute to the various newswire service and company website at the same time the filing is made with SEDAR/SEC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7bddaeebbd273226e1492633cf34ab1", "text": "This study introduces XBRL-enhanced digit analysis as a possible new approach to identify firm-year observations suspect of having manipulated earnings. Based on all available XBRL 10-K filings submitted to the SEC between 2009 and 2012, we find that firms likely to have managed earnings exhibit a higher amount of abnormal digit frequencies compared to other firm-years. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2297355", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86eecbaba47bd89a6c87a43197a402b9", "text": "Ex-Date is a function of the exchange, as well as the dividend. Consider Deutsche Bank AG, DB on the NYSE, DKR on Xetra. For a given dividend, each exchange sets the ex-date for trades on that exchange. (See http://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm for a description of how it works in the US; other exchanges/countries are similar.) This ex-date is normally based on the dividends record date, which is when you must be on the company's books as a shareholder to receive the dividend, and based on when trades for an exchange are settled. The ex-date is the first date for which trades on that date will not settle until after the record date. This means that the ex-date can be different for different exchanges. If you sell your shares on an exchange before the ex-date for that exchange, you will not get the dividend. If you sell your shares on or after the ex-date for the exchange, you do not get the dividend. So it depends on the time zone of the exchange. Most stock exchanges trade T+3, but this can still come into play if there are bank holidays in different countries at different times.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4694d4d8856d7ad268eb28c8d7372cac", "text": "In short, yes. Implied volatility will capture any expected upcoming material announcements. There is also supply/demand impact bundled in which may inflate an option price, and by extension increase implied volatility. OTM and ITM options are particularly predisposed to this phenomenon -- which is of course at odds with the traditional BS model assumptions -- the result is referred to as the volatility smile. Implied volatility is quoted as an annualised measure but isn't necessarily an annual value -- it will correspond to the option time period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c544c0eb4ec07e6e467f7e47f29f5ab", "text": "I am relative newbie in the financial market trading and as I understand it, the response from Victor is accurate in respect of trading CFD contracts. However, there is also the option to 'trade' through a financial spread betting platform which as its name suggests is purely a bet based upon the price of the underlying stock/asset. As such, I believe that your theory to short a stock just prior to its ex-dividend date may be worth investigating further... Apart from that, it's worthwhile mentioning that financial spread betting is officially recognised by HMRC as gambling and therefore not currently [2015/16] subject to capital gains tax. This info is given in good faith and must not be relied upon when making any investment and/or trading decision(s). I hope this helps you make a fortune - if it does; then please remember me!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af985c110e87b9fc2117bba813b62cc5", "text": "\"No it does not. Candlesticks really have nothing to do with this, a stock price can open different then the previous day's close. Examining the chart of TSLA provides an example it closed on 1/18 at 238.8 it opened on 1/19 at 243.7 In candlestick parlance is is known as a \"\"gap up\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50f1ca05abaa0bcb89d9ef694f692a8d", "text": "Broadly, there's a bunch of stuff you need to be accounting for that's not reflected in the above, which will impact the A/D profile of an acquisition: * Consideration paid (all cash on substantially the same terms is going to be more accretive than an all-stock transaction...because in the latter, your denominator is much bigger) * Shares outstanding (including repurchases, in-kind dividends and option exercise) * Financing / interest expense * Upside / base / downside case for all of your assumptions - best to have a toggle based on a CHOOSE function that will allow the user to easily toggle between these I'm not sure what EBITDA is getting you. EPS accretion/dilution typically looks at earnings, but you could also look at Cash EPS A/D which measures OCF/shares outstanding. The point is, this really depends on how back of the envelope you want the A/D computation to be. At a minimum, you need an earnings schedule projected over the next 2-3 years, and you need a schedule reflecting outstanding shares over the same time period. Your earnings buildout can have varying degrees of granularity. You can project cost synergies over the forecast period, which most obviously is going to affect your earnings, but you can also drill down further. Financing, transaction fees, etc. Your writeups and writedowns from your B/S combination may result in certain deferred tax items that will affect your bottom line over the forecast period. Your share schedule can also have varying degrees of complexity. One way to do it is to just presume that the company will not issue any more shares, and will not repurchase any shares, and that there will be no options exercised, over the forecast period. This is a bad series of assumptions. It is likely that as options vest, if in the money, they will be exercised, resulting in dilution for existing shareholders. It is also likely that certain preferred shareholders and optionholders are going to experience adjustments to the conversion prices based on antidilution provisions in their securities. These may be but are not always disclosed in the 10K. Last point - models are tools. What are you trying to build an accretion/dilution model for? This will affect and determine the degree of granularity you'll want to go into.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e65bd064fbdce5bd4a59cc1b63ec68e", "text": "From every article I've encountered, the chicken and egg aspect suggests that IV is produced by looking at options pricing, and calculating the IV from that. The implication is that whatever is known at that time is included in the price. And that when you see a particular option trade an unusual number of contracts at a given price, the implication is that someone thinks they know something that's not already priced in, i.e. that the current price is not accurate, they can profit on the future event.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4a71fc85c032d32e46004b813b79a49e	How can I increase my hourly pay as a software developer?	[ { "docid": "193f580ba1062108b845286f5f5880af", "text": "Short term: ask for a raise or look for a new job that pays more. Longer term:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94146b4330555818feda573df22bae17", "text": "\"It's a tough thing to do. You should look for a salaried position. Your freelance skills will be much better received, if you've worked for a couple of companies doing programming full time. Nothing beats working at it all day long for a few years. If you're set on being freelance, write some utility that will be popular, and submit it to Freshmeat.net. Now that's asking a lot. Those on the Web looking for programmers will most likely want you to work for 'sweat equity'. That is, a share in the company for you labour. In other words \"\"FREE\"\". I've done my share of those, and if you're just getting into this, you should steer away from them. You may hit the jackpot, but you won't sleep for the next few years ;-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df4a00aae5b2594165f3e3303ca50dd7", "text": "You are paid hourly? I would have expected most IT people to be on salary Depends what your boss is like, he might be easy going and just give a raise if you ask for it. Failing that, do some self improvements, learn something new, take a course, maybe take some PHP certifications or even java certifications? Then at least you can say you're trying to move up In regards to pay, have a look on monster or some US job sites, at jobs similar to what you do and with the similar requirements, that should give you an idea of what you should be on. If all else fails, find a new job, that is always a good way of moving up Hope this helps", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ede1689ace9138ad13e74f51779bd45", "text": "\"Start by going to Salary.com and figuring out what the range is for your location (could be quite wide). Then also look at job postings in your area and see if any of them mention remuneration (gov't jobs tend to do this). If possible go and ask other people in your field what they think the expected range of salary should be. Take all that data and create a range for your position. Then try and place yourself in that range based on your experience and skill set. Be honest. Compare that with your own pay. If your figures indicate you should be making significantly more, schedule a meeting with your boss (or wait for a yearly review if it's relatively soon) and lay out your findings. They can say: Be ready for curve balls like benefits, work environment and other \"\"intangibles\"\". If they say no and you still think your compensation is unfair, it's time to polish up your CV. The easiest way to get a job is to already have one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1440d96150367e0bcb8955123665157", "text": "Most full time developer jobs in the US are paid on a salary basis rather than hourly unless you are a contractor. Also, the pay varies widely by region in the US with the West and East coast typically paying the most, but also having the highest cost of living. A site I really like for getting salary data by region and keyword for technical jobs is indeed.com. Here is a link to a chart on that site comparing salary trends for PHP and Joomla.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f370d8a71f896a0c56549e8a543631df", "text": "Yeah, I mean, what it really comes down to is the fact that life isn't fair. I would think that if your company is squeezed enough that it's paying a lot more for new employees who do what you do already, then if you go to your boss and ask for a raise, he's not going to say no. It's way easier (and cheaper) to keep an employee, particularly a good one, than to find someone new. Just a thought.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf158f27289716139a40b5d8f7e24976", "text": "Like a lot of people have said you get what you put in. If you want a 9-5 you can have that but the pay reflects it. I took a job just over a year ago, the money was good but the hours were tough. My longest shift was 27 hours, it formed part of a 64 hour Friday morning to Monday morning weekend. But the long hours and the dedication I showed meant that I could turn down a 34% pay rise 6 months in and negotiate for 43%. That project finished, I'm down to a 45 hour week and I've still got the pay. You just have to work out if it'll get better down the line or if it won't how long you can handle it", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d32e6bbf3e8763cd8d17876bd46ca6a3", "text": ".. No If I can make a job offer for $7 per hour and people apply.. Why would I ever pay more? I'm not forcing people to apply. They want the job. If $7 an hour is good enough for the workers who apply, then it's good enough for me. Why pay more when I can pay less? I'll need to hire people soon for packing and shipping and you bet I'll be paying the state minimum wage because I know I'll have people applying to work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d428d95466090dd66bf8d67878fa2ee4", "text": "I don't count bonuses because they fluctuate from 5% to 200% which depends, up to 50%, on how the company does as a whole, not just how well you perform. Can't count on something like that. The guys I see working 70+ hours are the ones that end up with the big bonuses and great jobs without having to go to a top program after work. Anyway, best of luck to you in your career. It seems like you know what you need to do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5a2c50b5203029f48d9b4038438591b", "text": "Yes. I have personally signed such contracts (fixed budget software development) and lost money every single time. And yes, it is quite possible for you to get paid under minimum wage if you take too long. Scope creep is the primary culprit for these kinds of contracts, so make sure you put together iron-clad explanations of what is and is not covered by the contract (and pad the asking price for good measure).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0d4324ef1df19543e25b7cba2b0dddf", "text": "\"This is really the best thing you can do for any salary job in the interview process. It makes negotiating salaries SO much easier and you have a baseline to tell if they're trying to short you or what they thought of your interview. Granted you should be adjusting for experience on a case-by-case basis but I've pointed to this in interviews when salary came up and (politely) said \"\"<here's> the average, I have a lot of experience in the field so I think <this> is an appropriately adjusted amount.\"\" None of my counter offers have been lower than the average.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c277aaf9069da26a989115ac40be1bc8", "text": "\"With your knowledge/experience, you should easily be able to find work through one of the freelance developer sites out there. It would let you work flexibly on your own schedule, and you can decide what types of work you're willing to do at rates you choose to work for. You could always come up with your own ideas for a commercial website of some kind that could help generate some degree of passive income that won't interfere with your full-time work. That's only limited by your imagination and creativity. The third alternative is to find a \"\"real\"\" job (I chuckle at that one!) like most people do. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9219a8134feb003165157fd8cc842b8c", "text": "\"Hey, I hope I didnt come off as harsh on you. I'm not sure how much I can help, but Id be glad to give you tips on getting you name in the door with the big companies, and other career-y advice. If you haven't already though, please read this article on [negotiating from the perspective of an engineer](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/). I don't think anyone truly enjoys negotiating, but with experience it becomes much easier and more natural. See yourself as an asset - because you obviously are if they are offering their money to you! And in reading your post - let me say this. Never see your company as your friend. Yeah, you might be friends with your boss and coworkers, you all might be in a softball league and hangout, but when it comes to the hours of 9-5, to someone somewhere in your chain of command you are a line item that costs them X amount of money and makes them X amount. Don't forget that, and don't let yourself have \"\"feelings\"\" towards the company. If the company isn't smart enough to hire a backup, even after you have advised them to do so, that is their doing and any repercussions are for them to take. I'm not saying be unflexible, but if you ever, *ever, start to think about making or not making a major decision (such as not leaving a company) that is bad for your bottom line in exchange for helping out the company or due to \"\"feeling\"\" in some way towards the company, stop, forget your feelings, and do what logic alone tells you to do. You and your company are not friends. If the company can find someone cheaper to do your job, they will do so with no feelings towards you. And the being solo part -- yeah, thats not a good way to go early in your career. I've made it my objective to surround myself with people smarter than me who are willing to guide me, even at the cost of current financial gains, simply because as a young professional learning from others is one of the top priorities for me now. Running solo - being shoved to a corner to do your work alone - is a huge no-no IMO.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6a8e9b812dee0861eded0b48d1a0846", "text": "\"Your employer appears to be stealing from you. I know, Canada -- but I'm assuming you have the distinct pleasure of getting paid in local currency. I know it's easier said than done, but if you can code decently in something like Ruby, just look online for local hackathons and Startup Weekend events. Every single on I have attended, one or more professional speakers ends their presentation with \"\"and we're hiring developers\"\". Even if that doesn't happen, you'll get some great opportunities for networking and you will have a rudimentary public project to share with potential leads. Plus they are fun.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a837dc409208f2fa5f1fa6cf016495b", "text": "\"I worked for a company a few years back that insisted all of us were \"\"non-supervised exempt technical workers,\"\" and they wanted 45 hours out of each person. No matter to them that that was a 12.5% cut in hourly pay. Unfortunately, they did no research and didn't bother to actually apply for any exemptions. One of the analysts got sick of it, found another job, then turned over his timecards to the labor department. Said company had to write him a check for $10k, as well as write smaller checks for every other person working there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec1d0cde477f4f5b3cbf886bfe067706", "text": "\"I am not sure if I would get any benefit besides the hourly payment as an intern. What are the benefits I can expect while working for this company (or any other software company) Probably none. Changes from company to company but usually only full-time employees are entitled for benefits. For example, could I ask them to reimburse my bus fare or fuel costs in addition to the hourly pay? You can always ask:-) If it's not in the offer - better ask now, you'll get paid what is written in the offer you accepted. Highly unlikely though. What kind of an \"\"employee\"\" is an intern? (Read about exempt and non-exempt employee, but that's all very confusing) As intern you're non-exempt. As a professional (i.e.: Not part of internship) you would be exempt. Since this is the second time, since my interview, that I have requested, and been offered a higher rate, should I continue to ask them for a value near a $35/hr rate Have you asked them for $35? Or just for more? Anyway, I don't think that if they raised the offer from $17 to $21.75 that there's a chance for you to get $35 from them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b4a1700a7564c815a47509ce6a9008c", "text": "The hours you list are all over the place. Is it 40 hours/week or 65-80? You best clarify it during your interviews. My only tip is familiarize yourself with: http://gipsstandards.org/ They may not use it, but at least know what the industry standard is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75019fd7b1f430fe4279514984cefb53", "text": "\"You have to be firm. Refuse to work excessive overtime. This is why I switched to consulting. 16 hour days suck, but if you're billing for 16 hours, it makes it more bearable. I've recently switched to the \"\"I only care about money\"\" mode of thinking, and switched to hourly pay after being salaried for almost 10 years. And it's not that it's the only thing that matters, but a lot of the rest of this stuff falls into place. It really simplifies things. You don't work for free. Your time is seen as a commodity. You are given goals and targets. You're not dragged into unnecessary meetings. Your opinion is respected. If you have to work saturday, you're sure as hell billing for it. If I take off at 2pm because I want to watch a hockey game, I just stop billing at 2 and there isn't this \"\"I'm not getting my money's worth!\"\" feeling from the manager.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8da34da6ec8ad4ad3b909968309d6816", "text": "\"What makes a \"\"standard\"\" raise depends on how well the economy is doing, how well your particular industry is doing, and how well your employer is doing. All these things change constantly, so anyone who says, \"\"a good raise is 5%\"\" or whatever number is being simplistic. Even if true when he said it, it won't necessarily be true next year, or this year in a different industry, etc. The thing to do is to look for salary surveys that are reasonably current and applicable. If today, in your industry, the average annual raise is 3% -- again, just making up a number -- then that's what you should think of as \"\"standard\"\". If you want a number, okay: In general, as a first-draft number, I look for a raise that's 2% or so above the current inflation rate. Yes, of course I'd LIKE to get a 20% raise every year, but that's not going to happen in real life. On the other hand if a company gives me raises that don't keep pace with inflation, than barring special circumstances I'm going to be looking for another job. But there are all sorts of special circumstances. If the economy is in a depression and unemployment in my field is 50%, I'll probably figure I'm lucky to have a job at all and not be too worried about raises. If the economy is booming and all my friends are getting 10% and 20% raises, then I'll want that too. As others have said, in the United States at least, the best way to get a pay raise is to change jobs. I think most American companies are absolutely stupid about this. They don't want to give current employees big raises, so they let them quit, and then hire replacements at a much higher salary than they were paying the guy they just drove to quit. And the replacement doesn't know the company and may have a lot to learn before he is fully productive. And then they congratulate themselves that they kept raises this year to only 3% -- even though total salaries paid went up by 10% because the new hires demanded higher salaries. They actively punish employees for staying with the company. (Reminds me of an article I read in a business magazine by an executive of a cell phone company. He bemoaned the fact that in the cell phone industry it is very hard to keep customers: they are constantly switching to other vendors. And I thought, Duh, maybe it's because you offer big discounts for the first year or two, and after that you jack your prices up through the roof. You actively punish your customers for staying with you more than 2 years, and then you wonder why customers leave after 2 years.) Oh, if you do change jobs: Absolutely do not buy a line of \"\"we'll start you off with this lower salary but don't worry because you'll get a big raise in a year\"\". When you're looking for a job, it's very easy to turn down a poor offer. Once you have taken a job, leaving to get another job is a big decision and a lot of work. So you have way more bargaining power on starting salary than on raises. And the company knows it and is trying to take advantage of it. Also consider not just percentage increase but what you're making now versus what other people with similar experience are making. If people comparable to you are making $50k and you're making $30k, you're more likely to get a big raise than if you're already making $80k. If the company says, \"\"We just don't have the budget to give you a raise\"\", the key question is, \"\"Is that true?\"\" If the company is tottering on the edge of bankruptcy and trying to cut costs everywhere, then even if they know you're a good and productive employee, they may really just not have the money to give you a good raise. But if business is booming, this could just be an excuse. It might be an excuse for \"\"we're trying to bleed employees white so the CEO can get another million dollar bonus this year\"\". Or it might be a euphemism for \"\"you're really not a very useful employee and we're seriously thinking of firing you, no way we're going to give you a raise for the little bit of work you do when you bother to show up\"\". My final word: Be realistic. What matters isn't what you want or think you need, but what you are worth to the company, and what other people with similar skills are willing to work for. If you are doing work that brings in $20k per year for the company, there is no way they are going to pay you more than $20k for very long. You can go on and on about how expensive it is these days to pay the mortgage and pay medical bills and feed your 10 children and support your cocaine addiction, but none of that is relevant to what you are worth to the company. Likewise if there are millions of people out there who would love to have your job for $20k, if you demand a lot more than that they're going to fire you and hire one of them. Conversely, if you're bringing in $100k a year for the company, they'll be willing to pay you a substantial percentage of that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d701e65d752ded1d87e896f088aea506", "text": "\"Somehow I just stumbled onto this thread... > You essentially robbed the person holding the debt (since you promised to pay it off). Depends on leverage, with fractional reserve lending. Banks are permitted to loan out 30x their actual assets, or more. If I have $1 but can loan out $30, and anything more than $1 gets paid back, I haven't lost any money. In addition, I can write off the amount defaulted, and the government will pay me back* for certain types of loans. With student loans, since they are almost impossible to discharge, gov't will pursue the borrower for years and decades, and ultimately collect more interest. Here is an article on it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723104576061953842079760.html > According to Kantrowitz, the government stands to earn $2,010.44 more in interest from a $10,000 loan that defaulted than if it had been paid in full over a 20-year term, and $6,522.00 more than if it had been paid back in 10 years. Alan Collinge, founder of borrowers' rights advocacy Student Loan Justice, said the high recovery rates provide a \"\"perverted incentive\"\" for the government to allow loans to go into default. Kantrowitz estimates the recovery rate would need to fall to below 50% in order for default prevention efforts to become more lucrative than defaults themselves. Not to mention: http://studentloanjustice.org/defaults-making-money.html > So essentially, the Department is given a choice: Either do nothing and get nothing, or outlay cash with the knowledge that this outlay will realize a 22 percent return, ultimately (minus the governments cost of money and collection costs). From this perspective, it is clear that based solely on financial motivations, and without specific detailed knowledge of the loan (i.e. borrower characteristics, etc.), the chooser would clearly favor the default scenario, for not only the return, but perhaps the potential savings in subsidy payment as well, And don't forget the penalties accruing to the person defaulting; they will probably have to move out of the country in order to escape collection. And let's factor in the huge ROI the lender sees by creating an indentured servant class. Plus, the gov't will issue as much currency as it wants, to make itself whole. And how much of a loss IS the loss, when the whole of the loan amount went right back into the local economy, paying professors, janitors, landlords, grocery stores, etc.? And don't forget all THOSE taxes (income and sale) that the gov't collects. Government will collect ~30%-50% of the loan immediately as income and sales tax, plus a portion of it every time the money changes hands (I pay income tax, then use some of my after-tax money to pay you for a product or service, and you still have to pay tax on that money, and so on). So it's more complicated than having \"\"robbed the person holding the debt\"\". Banks at 30x leverage don't lose money as long as they get back 1/30th of the total amount lent out, including interest, fees, and penalties, before considering write-offs and government repayment. In fact, the point of over-leverage is so you CAN make loans that have risk attached. If you could only lend what you actually had, you would have to stay away from anything risky because it would be too easy to lose money. Having virtual $ to bet means you can serve market segments that have higher risk. This makes MORE money for the banks, that's why they do it. They are already playing with funny money, so they don't lose any even if you default and move to another country. And the money you \"\"spent\"\" has also made its way back to them in various amounts, such as your professor's mortgage payments, auto loan, etc. Your taking on debt already helped the bank get its OTHER loans repaid. So, roughly speaking, if you took out $90,000 and $3,000 of that made its way back to the bank through various means, they haven't lost any money, because it only cost them $3,000 actual dollars in the first place.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b2515ba3b648a8601178ec35f645d4d8	How to negotiate when you have something to give back?	[ { "docid": "dc5fd5eeb9a1417fa39f3985391b0af7", "text": "NEVER combine the negotiations for trade-in of an old car and purchase of a new one (and/or financing), if you can avoid doing so. Dealers are very good at trading off one against the other to increase their total profit, and it's harder for you to walk away when you have to discard the whole thing. These are separate transactions, each of which can be done with other parties. Treat them as such.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab9131fad945a1648aa94139b727c914", "text": "\"I don't think that there is a generic answer that will apply to this question across all goods. The answer depends on how the related businesses work, how much insight you have into the true value of the goods, and probably other things. Your car example is a good one that shows multiple options - There are dealers who will buy as a single transaction, sell as a single transaction, or do a simultaneous sell with trade-in. I had a hot tub once, on the other hand, where I could find people who would do a trade-in, but there was no dealer who would just buy my used tub. There's not much parallel between the car and the tub because the options available are very different. To the extent that there is a generic answer, I generally agree with the point in @keshlam's answer about trying to avoid entrapment, but I take a slightly different view. If you want to get your best deal, you need to have an idea going into the process of what you want in net and keep focused on meeting your goal. If for some reason, it's convenient for the dealer to \"\"move money around\"\" between the new car and the trade-in, I'm ok with that as long as I'm getting what I want out of the deal. If possible, I prefer to deal with both transactions at once because it's simpler. At the same time, I'm willing to remove the trade-in from the deal if I'm not getting what I want. (Threatening to do so can also give you some information about where the dealer really puts the value between the new car and trade-in since, if you threaten to pull the trade-in, the price on the car will probably change in response.)\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8d15d7755a852c83c55d0dcfd11539b4", "text": "\"This is all well and good, but sometimes you just run into an intractable manager. There are plenty of managers out there who are both cheap and are generally resistant to budging on negotiations. In those cases, your \"\"4th best negotiation tip\"\" is to have a best alternative to the job in your pocket.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "576f7d951a779bdf0f9e1097102fbb92", "text": "There is nothing fair / unfair in such deals. It is an art than a science. what kind of things should be considered, to work out what would be a fair percentage stake A true fair value is; take the current valuation of the company [This can be difficult if it is small and does not maintain proper records]. Divide by number of shares, that is the value of share and you should 20K worth of such shares. But then there is risk premium. You are taking a risk that an small start-up may do exceedingly well ... or it may close off. This risk premium is what is negotiated. It depends on how desperate the owner of the small company is; who all are interested in this specific deal ... if you want 30% share; someone else is ready to offer 20K for 15% of share. Or there is no one willing to lend 20K as they don't believe it will make money ... and the owner is desperate, you may even get 50%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d751bb58287633136416f3c2393ddb4", "text": "Here's another way that I look at it: Say you and me were 50-50 partners in a small business. Suppose we wanted to expand our business but that needed money. Someone (let's call him Warren) has the money we need & hence in return for the money we offer Warren an equal stake in the business. i.e. All three of us own 33% stake now. For both you and me our stake reduced from 50% that it was before Warren's entry to only 33% now. While that reduction in our share may seem at first sight a bad deal for us, we both agreed to give Warren his share consciously not out of altruism but because it made business sense to helps us expand. Ergo, what matters is not just your share of the pie but the size of the pie itself! And hence dilution of stake can make sense under certain circumstances. Two small points: (a) This doesn't in any way show the dilution must make sense. Only that it can sometimes make sense (b) Of course, in the case of a large corporation they do not need your personal approval for the dilution. But hey, neither do they ask you when they buy a new plant or start a new product.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "214b9a8488e5c323e50da361b25e759c", "text": "The most important lesson is never lend money to friends, unless you are willing to forget the lent amount, if the need arises to save your friendship. Money and relations/friendship is a dangerous cocktail. Your friend may assume, as you are his friend he may get lenient treatment while treating the money. And if you harangue about the money your friendship may suffer. So be careful while lending money to friends. If you make up a contract, your friend may ask why, if he isn't reasonable, as you are his friend. From personal experience, I forget about the lent money but jot it down somewhere. And when I am repaid I strike it off. I never discuss about the money or bring it up. People don't like to be reminded by a friend that they owe them money. But refusing also isn't a viable option either. You probably have to take a middle path.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c6c7964d781e67dd9f9186e457bc025", "text": "\"SO has observed a lot of irresponsible spending from a parent, which has scarred SO for life OK, so we've got fear... SO is not very financially savvy and has very little idea about how much we earn ...and ignorance. You are entirely correct to worry about the conversation. Fear plus ignorance equals disastrous conversations. I manage our finances. Apparently your SO wishes to have input on the management of your finances without understanding them. It strikes me that this serves neither of you well. I would note that it is exceedingly difficult to rationally argue someone out of a position that they arrived at through irrational fear and ignorance. So I wouldn't start by having a conversation about charitable giving at all. Rather, I would start by addressing the ignorance, because that's the easy one. how high up we are in terms of being in the top y% of households by income Income is irrelevant to the fearful; income can vanish with debts remaining. If your SO is not earning much of that income then SO's future financial security is dependent on the whims of another, which has already turned out badly once for SO. Focusing on raw income is the wrong way to go; focusing on an abstraction like percentile is even more irrelevant. The figures to focus on are not income and percentile, but rather net worth and change in net worth over time. Income $300K, expenses $350K eventually leads to poverty if you lack net worth, even if you are in the 1% of income earners. Open up with \"\"how much do you think we earn?\"\" Playing rhetorical games with ignorant people seems both risky and perhaps unethical to me, and it seems unlikely to engender trust. I would approach this situation by first removing the ignorance, rather than attempting to take advantage of it for rhetorical purposes. I would also institute a policy that ignorant people don't get a say. If SO wants to abrogate financial responsibility to you, then SO should accept your decisions without question. If SO wants to have a say in your joint financial life then SO has a responsibility to make recommendations based on both facts and feelings, not just feelings. So, how to remove this ignorance? This will take some doing, but not much. Go through your records and account for: From that you can compute your net worth. Then go back a few years and account for: From this you can show the effect of your past prudent decisions on your net worth. There should be no percentages. There should be no math more complicated than adding and subtracting, and it should be very clear what adds and substracts to what. People who are financially savvy are extremely intimidated by jargon. If some of your increase in net worth came from a realized capital gain less taxes do not say \"\"realized capital gain less taxes\"\" on your summary document. There should be no \"\"depreciation\"\" or \"\"cost basis\"\" or anything even vaguely like that. Even \"\"assets\"\" and \"\"liabilities\"\" are too jargonish. \"\"Possessions\"\" and \"\"debts\"\" are more easily understood. I'm thinking something like: My SO is financially savvy and still I do this about twice a year; it's helpful for both of us to have a quick summary of what's coming in, what's going out, and what we've got. Once the ignorance is gone, then start working on the fear. It sounds like the fear comes from a betrayal of trust, so it's not just enough to be trustworthy, you've got to consistently appear trustworthy. A great way to do that is to keep doing what I already suggested: on a regular, ongoing basis inform SO of how you are doing financially. When SO sees that net worth is consistently improving over time, that you are not one bad decision away from poverty, the fear should diminish. Expect this to take a long time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c3d65dc1a9121edc29f7efe1ea815be", "text": "\"Advice from a long-time flipper You negotiate price based on four factors and none of these are set in stone: How much you love the house. Is this house a 100 out of 100 for you or a 85 or a 75. How much have you compromised. What is the likelihood that you will find a house that will make you just as happy or at least close. You might have a house that is a 95 out of 100 but there are five other houses that you rated between 93-95. What is your timeframe. Know that playing hardball takes longer and can knock you out of the game sometimes and takes a little while to find a new game. What is the relative housing market. Zillow and other such sites are crap. Yes the give you a generalized feel for a community but their estimates are off sometimes by 30-40%. Other factors like street/noise/updates to house/ and so on are huge factors. You will have to really navigate the area and look for very comparable houses that have recently sold. Then use average housing movements to extrapolate your future houses cost. As a buyer you have two jobs. Buy the house you want and manage your agent. Your agent wants you to buy a house as soon as possible and to increase their reputation. Those are their only two factors of working. By you offering closer to the asking price they are able to get their sales as quick as possible. Also other agents will love working with them. In fact your agent is selling you on the home and the price. Agents hardly worry about you paying too much - as most buyers oversell the deal they get on their home. Admitting that you paid too much for your house is more of an admission of ignorance of yourself, compared to agent incompetency. If you decide to low-ball the owner, your agent spends more time with you and possibly reduces their reputation with the selling agent. So it is common for agents to tell you that you should not offer a low price as you will insult the owner. My advice. Unless the home is truly one of a kind for the market offering anything within 20% of the asking price is DEFINITELY within range. I have offered 40% less. If a house is asking too much and has been on the market for 8 months there is no way I am going in with an offer of even 15% lower. That leaves you no room. What you do? First think about how much you think this house could sell for in the next 3 months. In your example let's say 80K based on conservative comps. Then take the most you would actually pay for it. Let's say 75K. 70K is about as high of an opening offer I would go. Do NOT tell your agent your true breaking points. If you tell your agent that you would go to 75K on the house. Then that is what their negotiations will start at. Remember they want the sale to happen as soon as possible. Very likely the other agent - especially if they know each other - will ask if how flexible you are going to be. Then next thing you know your agent calls you back and says would you be willing to go 77K or the owner is firm at 80K. Do not give up your position. You should never forecast to your agent what your next bid or offer would be for the house. Never get into scenarios or future counters. So you offer 70K. If your agent asks you how firm that is? \"\"Very firm\"\". If your agent doesn't want to take the offer to them, \"\"Thank you for being my agent, but I am going to be working with someone that represents what I want.\"\" If the owner says \"\"You are done too me cheapskate.\"\" Well that's how it goes. If the owner stays firm at asking or lowers - then you can come up if you feel comfortable doing so. But understand what your goal is. Is it to get a house or to get a good deal on a house? Mine was always to get a good deal on a house. So I might offer 72K next. If they didn't budge, I am out. If they moved down I went from there. Easy Summary The fact is if they aren't willing to negotiate with you enough it always ends the same. You give them your take-it-or-leave-it offer. You tell your agent that if he/she comes back with one penny over it comes from their commission (god I have said this 100 times in my life and it is the best negotiation tactic you have with your agent). The owner says yes or no and it is over.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "088580c45a50a56416efa893fd9b5a5d", "text": "Give all your money as well as your budget requirements to someone you really trust. Tell them to give you ONLY what your budget allows. As long as both of you take this seriously, this method will be very effective.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "231c8283c9656c1c1a24480712f7b79b", "text": "The standard approach is to reach an agreement and put it in writing. What you agree upon is up to you, but in the US if you want to avoid gift taxes larger loans need to be properly documented and must charge at least a certain minimal interest rate. (Or at least you must declare and be taxed upon that minimal income even if you don't actually charge it. Last I looked, the federal requirement was somewhere under 0.3%, so this isn't usually an issue. There may also be state rules.) When doing business with friends, treat it as business first, friendship second. Otherwise you risk losing both money and friendship. Regarding what rate to charge: That is something you two have to negotiate, based on how much the borrower needs the money, how much lending the money puts the lender at risk, how generous each is feeling, etc. Sorry, but there is no one-size-fits-all answer here. What I charge (or insist on paying to) my brother might be different from what I charge my cousin, or a co-worker, or best friend, or... If both parties think it's fair, it's fair. If you can't reach an agreement, of course, the loan doesn't happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f85639771dc180365f4078aa1025bd8a", "text": "In the US, if it's a large donation to a tax-exempt organization (401c3 or equivalent), you may want to consider giving appreciated equities (stocks, bonds, mutual fund shares which are now worth more than you paid for them). You get to claim the deduction's value at the time you transfer it to their account, and you avoid capital gains tax. They would pay the capital-gains tax when they redeem it for cash... but if exempt, they get the full value and the tax is completely avoided. Effectively, your donation costs you less for the same impact. It does take a bit of work to coordinate this with the receiving organization, and there may be brokerage fees, so it probably isn't worth doing for small sums.)Transfers within the same brokerage house may avoid those feee.) So again, you should talk to the charity about what's best. But for larger donations, where larger probably starts at a few thou, it can save you a nice chunk of change.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e05e13d28a008dfdf53244a99276f6c0", "text": "Since no one else mentioned it, there are sometimes amazing deals that require being the first person to take advantage of them. I'm not talking about black Friday sales, I'm talking about the woman who decided to sell the Porsche (she had bought for her cheating husband) for $1000. You might not run into those types of deals often, but having liquid investments will allow you to take advantage of them instead of kicking yourself. I just bought some real estate with some of my emergency fund that needed several months before I could properly finance it due to some legal issues with the deed that needed to go through court because there was a deceased person on the title. I will make far more on the deal when it's done than I ever could have made with that money invested in the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9ebe78161a536d7558dd48aea39b3d0", "text": "\"If you and your parents both put up money to buy a house or anything else, what share each of you owns would be a subject for negotiation and agreement between you. To the best of my knowledge, there is no law that says \"\"if person X pays the down payment and person Y pays the monthly payments, than X owns 40% and Y owns 60%\"\" or any other specific numbers. Parents often give their children money to help with a down payment on a house or a car with the understanding that this is a gift and the child still owns 100% of the item. Other times they are unwilling or unable to just give the money and want some stake in exchange. In the case of a house or a car, there's a title that identifies the owner, and legally the owner is the person or people named on the title. I'd suggest that if you want to have split ownership, like if your parents are saying that they'll help with the down payment but they want to get that money back when you sell or some such, that you come up with a written agreement saying who owns what percentage and you both sign it. If there was a dispute -- if you never had an agreement about what share each owned and now you're selling the house and you're arguing over how much of the money each of you should get, or your parents want you to sell the house so they can get their money back but you don't want to sell, or whatever -- ultimately a court would decide. Presumably the judge would consider how much you had each paid in, but he might also consider who's been paying property taxes, how much work each has done to maintain the place, etc. It's better to have a written and signed agreement, something that everyone involved is satisfied with and where you all know exactly what you're agreeing to, rather than having a nasty surprise when a judge says no, you're not getting what you were assuming you were getting.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e43f9d61bad87cff37e8eca0c342c31e", "text": "I find that when I have to justify why I want something to someone else, I eliminate impulse buys because I have to think about it enough to explain to someone else why it is desirable. Simply going through that process in my own head in advance of a conversation to justify it I talk myself out of a lot of purchases. I'm married, so I have these conversations with my wife. She is very supportive of me buying things that I want if they will bring value. If I wasn't married and couldn't control my spending, I'd find a good friend or relative that I trust, and I would create a trust with me as the primary beneficiary, and I would appoint a trustee who was willing to sign off on any purchase that I wanted to make after justifying it to them. If I had no friends or relatives that I trusted in that role, I'd hire a financial adviser to fill the same role. Contractually I would want to be able to terminate the arrangement if it was not working, but that would mean sacrificing the legal fees to alter the trust and appoint a new trustee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "135b37b7948dbd97c8af6da4003abfa7", "text": "In terms of preserving good relationships one approach is to charge a nominal rate of interest. maybe a few percent of the total and agree a time when it should be paid back. This may actually make them feel better about borrowing them money, especially, especially if it is something like business loan or buying a house or car. If they need the money for a real crisis and they have no clear strategy for paying it back then it may just be better all around if you make it clear that it is a gift. What you don't want to do is set up a situation where you are creating unnecessary problems down the road and that will very much depend on your individual relationship and how seriously you take the loan. Here it is important that you are completely open and honest about the arrangement so take the time to make sure that both parties understand exactly what they expect from each other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09eb4f9f059e4efdb43ffc2f2f3b3b82", "text": "\"You mention that \"\"A great friend and couple's family\"\" which makes me think this is a couple. For gift tax concerns, you can give a couple 2 x the gift tax exemption ($28,000 in 2015). Your example of $22k would fit in this amount. To give this money anonymously, I know that people have reached out to a pastor in the area who will deliver an envelope with the gift and not disclose the source. Talking to a pastor who has done this, he said the call came out of the blue and he was happy to be able to help.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "575df92d2b0565fc6b973f8823955a0a", "text": "\"There is the price they want and the price you pay. Everything is negotiable when its a service (always possible, but usually harder with actual \"\"goods\"\"). You should always haggle and price match your vendors. You can also try going to different vendors and not telling them its for a wedding and see if there really is a price difference. For example, call up a florist and say you need X, Y, and Z for a corporate banquet or for a special event for which you cannot give the details. If you then tell them its actually a wedding, and they blindly raise it without a good justification, move on. That said, they jack up the price because they know most people will says \"\"it's my wedding\"\", \"\"it's once in a lifetime\"\", \"\"it's MY special day\"\", etc.... The same is true about diamonds, their price does not reflect the actual supply and demand ratio, just the perception that has been created. However, as mentioned in some of the comments above, the service provided at a wedding may be different or more involved than just a normal dinner The more important issue is ensuring there are no back fees, no hidden fees, and you have well written, well reviewed contracts. For example, we know a couple whose caterer added a mandatory 20% gratuity, regardless of the service which was provided. Most venues or restaurants will not be making the bar a lose-leader, but they will charge for other things. You can also save money by buying used or looking on ebay for prices closer to wholesale for the product. I think a good analogy to this is the Recent Time Magazine article on the price of healthcare - it costs a lot because its a small market and its harder to navigate, and most are not experienced shoppers in the area or don't have control over the individual item costs.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
0cc20b23bf72f0d4cf014671f9aa5e2d	Slow destruction on co-signed property	[ { "docid": "7be13fa59cf116fba48f6e48a8d156b8", "text": "\"First off learn from this: Never cosign again. There are plenty of other \"\"tales of woe\"\" outlined on this site that started and ended similarly. Secondly do what you can to get off of the loan. First I'd go back to her dad and offer him $1000 to take you off the loan and sign over the car. Maybe go up to $3000 if you have that much cash. If that doesn't work go to the bank and offer them half of the loan balance to take you off. You can sign a personal loan for that amount (maybe). Whatever it takes to get off the loan. If she has a new BF offer him the same deal as the dad. Why do you have to do this? Because you owned an asset that was once valued at 13K and is valued at (probably) less than 4K. Given that you have a loan on it the leverage works against you causing you to lose more money. The goal now is to cut your losses and learn from your mistakes. I feel like the goal of your post was to make your ex-gf look bad. It's more important to do some self examination. If she was such a bad person why did you date her? Why did you enter a business transaction with her? I'd recommend seeking counseling on why you make such poor choices and to help you avoid them in the future. Along these lines I'd also examine your goals in life. If your desire is to be a wealthy person, then why would you borrow money to buy a car? Seek to imitate rich people to become rich. Picking the right friends and mates is an important part of this. If you do not have a desire to be a wealthy person what does it matter? Losing 13K over seven months is a small step in the \"\"right\"\" direction.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8920dfc811304724fd604a06d0c91b13", "text": "Ok, have your father 'sell' you the house with a RECORDED land contract for x dollars and a gift of equity(GOE) of y. He writes of the max he can each year for the GOE (ask a tax attorney on this one), and your cousin lends him the money for his FL prop. Consult a tax attorney on the capital gains, but you can write off the actualized gains at sale if you LIVED in the prop for 2 of the last 5 or 7 years (I can't remember) and were on title. Years later, you use the recorded land contract, with the verifiable on time payments you've been making, to a conforming lender and do a R&T refi.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a40eee5445e687b0de14606db987a66", "text": "Well, it sounds like you have two options: 1) Continue to jointly own the house. 2) Compensate her for her equity and get the title transferred. I hate to tell you this, but she is entitled to half of the equity regardless of how much she paid into it. That said, she is still on the hook equally for the loan amount, but it won't do you any good if she is not willing to pay. Also, option 2 probably isn't a good deal for your co-signer as she would still be liable for the entire loan loan (just as you are) regardless of the title.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "061141806f091a02d25a648a41b3b36d", "text": "\"This is a classic case of Sunk Cost Fallacy. The basic idea is this - don't look at how much you've invested, look at what the thing is worth. It sounds like you are no longer able to keep up, so the financial answer is to stop making repairs, etc. The only question is - whose name is on the deed? If your coworker still owns the asset, you can simply back out say, \"\"the mobile home is yours, any repairs and payments I made are yours too.\"\" Basically, you will be out all of your work and what you put into it, but you're not continuing to dig a hole. Your coworker should consider your investment as a gift, but a gift that is no longer being made. If in taking over the asset he put it in your name, the asset is yours to do with as you please. It sounds like you should dispose of the asset, even if its at a loss. Either way, from a financial perspective, the answer is to cut your losses and be done with it. All of that is, of course, a strictly financial answer. Reading between the lines, it seems like you feel guilty about not being able to honor the commitment you have made. If there is a sentimental attachment to the mobile, I would suggest discussing your situation with the coworker. That's really not a financial consideration, but that doesn't mean its unimportant.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25c80accc613ec73f5527afe291d030d", "text": "\"The wording of this question is very confusing because \"\"primary signer\"\" would, in ordinary parlance, mean the person borrowing the money and the co-signer (not consigner) would mean the one who is guaranteeing the repayment of the loan: if the borrower does not pay, the co-signer is liable for making the payments. Whose name is on the title of the car? Who borrowed the money to buy the car? Is the loan in your name and your son co-signed the loan to induce the bank to loan you money to purchase the car, or is it the other way around, that your son borrowed the money and you co-signed the loan in order to induce the bank to loan your son the money? If the car title and the loan are in your name, are you defaulting on the loan and so your son is making the loan payments that should have come from you? Or is it that your son borrowed the money to buy the car, his name is on the title, he is making the payments, and you are no longer interested in backing him up in case he defaults and the bank comes after you for the money?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "181f3b8463231927b92a460b4f3e114f", "text": "\"Let's illustrate how typical mortgage and its insurance works, from the very beginning. few years pass You're at the last point now. The whole point of the insurance was to preserve value of bank's collateral, at least from its point of view. By making a claim you have testified that a damage has occurred and some value of the property was lost. It's only reasonable for the bank that it wants the value of the asset to be restored to the value of the loan. Or the other way around. Bank doesn't really care if your deck is repaired, it only cares to have right side equal left side in the books. By taking the mortgage you've agreed to preserve the value of the property. There are many ways out of this situation, but pocketing the money isn't one of them. There is no need to fight the mortgage company, because they're right. Talk with them in good faith and walk through available options. If you feel that you can live with the deck as it is, then paying back part of the loan might be a good idea. You don't \"\"lose\"\" the money this way, you're still 2k ahead - just not now, but in 20 years. Afterthought: it's possible that it would be \"\"enough\"\" to re-evaluate the house to ensure it's still worth its original value even with damaged deck (eg due to other improvements you've made over the years or general property prices rising in the area). I put quotes, because you have to count costs of reevaluation which may be too big to make it worth. AND it might turn out it's worth even less, eg if the prices dropped. Or add another collateral, but that means signing another lien which also costs money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11a2996ff8156b622af81b42c8684f50", "text": "\"Everyone who's giving a definite answer is just wrong - we just don't have enough information. It depends on what these \"\"certificates\"\" say and what OP signed. For all we know these are partnership agreements - or any old shit that some lawyer came up with. Without seeing what, if anything, OP signed we're simply guessing as to what OP's legal and financial liability might be.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dbafaba1e866e9f43f3a6ce0e416426", "text": "Although it may be a little late for you, the real answer is this: When you close on a mortgage for a primary residence you are affirming (in an affidavit), two intents: Now, these are affirming intentions — not guarantees; so if a homeowner has a change of circumstance, and cannot meet these affirmed intentions, there is almost always no penalty. Frankly, the mortgage holder's primary concern is you make payments on time, and they likely won't bother with any inquiry. That being said, should a homeowner have a pattern of buying primary residences, and in less than 1 year converting that primary to a rental, and purchasing a new primary; there will likely be a grounds for prosecution for mortgage fraud. In your specific situation, you cannot legally sign the owner-occupancy affidavit with the intention of not staying for 1 year. A solution would be to purchase the condo as a second home, or investment; both of which you can still typically get 80% financing. A second home is tricky, I would ask your lender what their requirements are for 2nd home classification. Outside that, you could buy the condo as a primary, stay in it for a year, then convert. If you absolutely had to purchase the 2nd property before 1 year, you could buy it as a primary with a 2 month rent back once you reach 10 months. Should you need it earlier, just buy the 2nd house as an investment, then once you move in, refinance it as a primary. This last strategy requires some planning ahead and you should explain your intention to the loan officer ahead of time so they can properly price the non-owner occupied loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83c5103a2466ef90c8b395307770c660", "text": "Your county wants the fee to record your newly owned house into the public record. Congratulations on the new wave of junk mail you are going to get =)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46129c258ecb12f5a85af074100f5744", "text": "\"This will probably require asking the SO to sign a quitclaim and/or to \"\"sell\"\" him her share of the vehicle's ownership and getting it re-titled in his own name alone, which is the question you actually asked. To cancel the cosigner arrangement, he has to pay off the loan. If he can't or doesn't want to do that in cash, he'd have to qualify for a new loan to refinasnce in his name only, or get someone else (such as yourself) to co-sign. Alternatively, he might sell the car (or something else) to pay what he still owes on it. As noted in other answers, this kind of mess is why you shouldn't get into either cosigning or joint ownership without a written agreement spelling out exactly what happens should one of the parties wish to end this arrangement. Doing business with friends is still doing business.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "897b8449942ba103ae50e8cf868afa70", "text": "\"I will expand on Bacon's comment. When you are married, and you acquire any kind of property, you automatically get a legal agreement. In most states that property is owned jointly and while there are exceptions that is the case most of the time. When you are unmarried, there is no such assumption of joint acquisition. While words might be said differently between the two parties, if there is nothing written down and signed then courts will almost always assume that only one party owns the property. Now unmarried people go into business all the time, but they do so by creating legally binding agreements that cover contingencies. If you two do proceed with this plan, it is necessary to create those documents with the help of a lawyer. Although expensive paying for this protection is a small price in relation to what will probably be one of the largest purchases in your lives. However, I do not recommend this. If Clayton can and wants to buy a home he should. Emma can rent from Clayton. That rent could any amount the two agree on, including zero. If the two do get married, well then Emma will end up owning any equity after that date. If they stay together until death, it is likely that she (or her heirs) will own half of it anyway. Also if this house is sold, the equity pass into larger house they buy after marriage, then that will be owned jointly. If they do break up, the break up is clean and neat. Presumably she would have paid rent anyway, so nothing is lost. Many people run into trouble having to sell at a bad time in a relationship that coincides with a weak housing market. In that case, both parties lose. So much like Bacon's advice I would not buy jointly. There is no upside, and you avoid a lot of downside. Don't play \"\"house\"\" by buying a home jointly when you are unmarried.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc51b36b9bf082a42f9d53d5552018d3", "text": "They're probably talking about flipping houses. The conventional wisdom when flipping is to purchase the property with a mortgage or other loan on day-0. Do the work to rehabilitate it. Get it listed for re-sale promptly (this step has varying strategies) with a profitable price but one that will make it move. Have the house sold on or before the first payment would be due. This is anywhere from 30 to 60 days. The flipper then never has to make a payment on the mortgage or loan, the costs of rehabilitating the home are recovered promptly (potentially before any loan, credit card payments, or invoices are due), and there is a profit. This also assumes that either a 100% loan or some other mechanism is used to address closing costs and fees. This model fits the premise of the infomercial in that you make money investing in real estate but never have to tie up any of your own money in the process.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b7004ec040ee8fba64f99d4f90af7cf", "text": "\"Also the will stipulated that the house cannot be sold as long as one of my wife's aunts (not the same one who supposedly took the file cabinet) is alive. This is a turkey of a provision, particularly if she is not living in the house. It essentially renders the house, which is mortgaged, valueless. You'd have to put money into it to maintain the mortgage until she dies and you can sell it. The way that I see it, you have four options: Crack that provision in the will. You'd need to hire a lawyer for that. It may not be possible. Abandon the house. It's currently owned by the estate, so leave it in the estate. Distribute any goods and investments, but let the bank foreclose on the house. You don't get any value from the house, but you don't lose anything either. Your father's credit rating will take a posthumous hit that it can afford. You may need to talk to a lawyer here as well, but this is going to be a standard problem. Explore a reverse mortgage. They may be able to accommodate the weird provision with the aunt and manage the property while giving a payout. Or maybe not. It doesn't hurt to ask. Find a property manager in Philadelphia and have them rent out the house for you. Google gave some results on \"\"find property management company Philadelphia\"\" and you might be able to do better while in Philadelphia to get rid of his stuff. Again, I'd leave the house on the estate, as you are blocked from selling. A lawyer might need to put it in a trust or something to make that work (if the estate has to be closed in a certain time period). Pay the mortgage out of the rent. If there's extra left over, you can either pay down the mortgage faster or distribute it. Note that the rent may not support the mortgage. If not, then option four is not practical. However, in that case, the house is unlikely to be worth much net of the mortgage anyway. Let the bank have it (option two). If the aunt needs to move into the house, then you can give up the rental income. She can either pay the mortgage (possibly by renting rooms) or allow foreclosure. A reverse mortgage might also help in that situation. It's worth noting that three of the options involve a lawyer. Consulting one to help choose among the options might be constructive. You may be able to find a law firm with offices in both Florida and Pennsylvania. It's currently winter. Someone should check on the house to make sure that the heat is running and the pipes aren't freezing. If you can't do anything with it now, consider winterizing by turning off the water and draining the pipes. Turn the heat down to something reasonable and unplug the refrigerator (throw out the food first). Note that the kind of heat matters. You may need to buy oil or pay a gas bill in addition to electricity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d31a275fbb717703bc4739ca6ad43aff", "text": "When I read that part of his post, it reminded me more of credit companies rather than banks. People default on credit all the time. I have no idea what the regulations are on the amount of credit that a company can issue, though. And this is sort of part of what actually happened in the beginning of the economic crunch. A bunch of people began to trade for credit (debt) against what they thought the future value of their house or other real estate would be. After a while, people stopped being able to afford property at its future value, so they stopped buying it. When people then tried to sell their property for the future value that they had borrowed against, they couldn't, so they couldn't pay back their debt. Because real estate had become a popular investment vehicle for the middle class, this was able to reach a kind of critical mass, and shortly afterward the effects rippled back into the credit market, which also had its own crunch -- a bunch of credit just disappeared overnight because so many people had assumed a level of debt that they could not actually fulfill their promises on once the future value of their home became completely imaginary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f2563cad205c94298096d00029a66ad", "text": "Depending on jurisdiction, the fact that you made some payments might give you an ownership share in the house in your own right. What share would be a complex question because you might need to consider both the mortgage payments made and maintenance. Your sister might also be able to argue that she was entitled to some recompense for the risk she describes of co-signing, and that's something that would be very hard to quantify, but clearly you would also be entitled to similar recompense in respect of that, as you also co-signed. For the share your mother owned, the normal rules of inheritance apply and by default that would be a 50-50 split as JoeTaxpayer said. You imply that the loan is still outstanding, so all of this only applies to the equity previously built up in the house prior to your mother's death. If you are the only one making the ongoing payments, I would expect any further equity built up to belong solely to you, but again the jurisdiction and the fact that your sister's name is on the deeds could affect this. If you can't resolve this amicably, you might need to get a court involved and it's possible that the cost of doing so would outweigh the eventual benefit to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d24058715dbda6f51062738f68df521", "text": "\"I saw where you said \"\"I thought of co-signing is if a portion of child/spousal support goes directly to the landlord. I asked the Child Support Services (who deduct money from my paycheck monthly to pay support to my ex) and they told me that they are not authorized to do this.\"\" I know going back to court isn't a pleasant thought, but from the looks of things, your suggestion is the only way to accomplish this. It's ridiculous for anyone to suggest you keep up your payments and cosign, yet the ex has no obligation to use that income to actually pay her rent. From what you've said, she sounds irresponsible and self-destructive. As someone who has had bad tenants, I'd not go near her, even with a cosigner. It's just not worth the risk.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d798055f129ce339154c71589b4e1034	Should I scale down my 401k?	[ { "docid": "69d52c5b1de2ac2f383d5cc2b8f189c9", "text": "Because stock markets don't always go up, sometimes they go down. Sometimes they go way down. Between 2007 and 2009 the S&P 500 lost over half its value. So if in 2007 you thought you had just enough to retire on, in 2009 you'd suddenly find you had only half of what you needed! Of course over the next few years, many of the stocks recovered value, but if you had retired in 2008 and depended on a 401k that consisted entirely of stocks, you'd have been forced to sell a bunch of stocks near the bottom of the market to cover your retirement living expenses. Bonds go up and down too, but usually not to the same extent as stocks, and ideally you aren't selling the bonds for your living expenses, just collecting the interest that's due you for the year. Of course, some companies and cities went bankrupt in the 2008 crisis too, and they stopped making interest payments. Another risk is that you may be forced to retire before you were actually planning to. As you age you are at increasing risk for medical problems that may force an early retirement. Many businesses coped with the 2008 recession by laying off their older workers who were earning higher salaries. It wasn't an easy environment for older workers to find jobs in, so many folks were forced into early retirement. Nothing is risk free, so you need to make an effort to understand what the risks are, and decide which ones you are comfortable with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "019436e3750e0037cce98d04021422c0", "text": "the whole room basically jumped on me I really have an issue with this. Someone providing advice should offer data, and guidance. Not bully you or attack you. You offer 3 choices. And I see intelligent answers advising you against #1. But I don't believe these are the only choices. My 401(k) has an S&P fund, a short term bond fund, and about 8 other choices including foreign, small cap, etc. I may be mistaken, but I thought regulations forced more choices. From the 2 choices, S&P and short term bond, I can create a stock bond mix to my liking. With respect to the 2 answers here, I agree, 100% might not be wise, but 50% stock may be too little. Moving to such a conservative mix too young, and you'll see lower returns. I like your plan to shift more conservative as you approach retirement. Edit - in response to the disclosure of the fees - 1.18% for Aggressive, .96% for Moderate I wrote an article 5 years back, Are you 401(k)o'ed in which I discuss the level of fees that result in my suggestion to not deposit above the match. Clearly, any fee above .90% would quickly erode the average tax benefit one might expect. I also recommend you watch a PBS Frontline episode titled The Retirement Gamble It makes the point as well as I can, if not better. The benefit of a 401(k) aside from the match (which you should never pass up) is the ability to take advantage of the difference in your marginal tax rate at retirement vs when earned. For the typical taxpayer, this means working and taking those deposits at the 25% bracket, and in retirement, withdrawing at 15%. When you invest in a fund with a fee above 1%, you can see it will wipe out the difference over time. An investor can pay .05% for the VOO ETF, paying as much over an investing lifetime, say 50 years, as you will pay in just over 2 years. They jumped on you? People pushing funds with these fees should be in jail, not offering financial advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36546e1e5f962b363348c8edd9fc9294", "text": "IMHO your thinking is spot on. More than likely, you are years away from retirement, like 22 if you retire somewhat early. Until you get close keep it in aggressive growth. Contribute as much as you can and you probably end up with 3 million in today's dollars. Okay so what if you were retiring in a year or two from now, and you have 3M, and have managed your debt well. You have no loans including no mortgage and an nice emergency fund. How much would you need to live? 60 or 70K year would provide roughly the equivalent of 100K salary (no social security tax, no commute, and no need to save for retirement) and you would not have a mortgage. So what you decide to do is move 250K and move it to bonds so you have enough to live off of for the next 3.5 years or so. That is less than 10% of your nest egg. You have 3.5 years to go through some roller coaster time of the market and you can always cherry pick when to replenish the bond fund. Having a 50% allocation for bonds is not very wise. The 80% probably good for people who have little or no savings like less than 250k and retired. I think you are a very bright individual and have some really good money sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41b29537cc484b71a7997be7f381d15d", "text": "\"See if they offer a \"\"Target Date\"\" plan that automatically adjusts throughout your career to balance gains against preserving what you've already built up. You can adjust for more or less aggressive by selecting a plan with a later or sooner target date, respectively. (But check the administrative fees; higher fees can eat up a surprisingly large part of your growth since they're essentially subtracted from rate of return and thus get compounded.) If they don't have that option, or charge too much for it, then yes, you may want to adjust which plan your money is in over time; you can usually \"\"exchange\"\" between these plans at no cost and with no tax penalty. NOTE: The tax-advantaged 401(k) investments should be considered in the context of all your investments. This is one of the things an independent financial planner can help you with. As with other investment decisions, the best answer for you depends on your risk tolerance and your time horizon.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "76fdec82f23aeb8c14fab73c29211526", "text": "\"Your employer could consider procuring benefits via a third party administrator, which provides benefits to and bargains collectively on behalf of multiple small companies. I used to work for a small start-up that did exactly that to improve their benefits across the board, including the 401k. The fees were still higher than buying a Vanguard index or ETF directly, but much better than the 1% you're talking about. In the meantime, here's my non-professional advice from personal experience and hindsight: If you're in a low/medium tax bracket and your 401k sucks, you might be better off to pay the tax up front and invest in a taxable account for the flexibility (assuming you're disciplined enough that you don't need the 401k to protect you from yourself). If you max out a crappy 401k today, you might miss a better opportunity to contribute to a 401k in the future. Big expenses could pop up at exactly the same time you get better investment options. Side note: if not enough employees participate in the 401k, the principals won't be able to take full advantage of it themselves. I think it's called a \"\"nondiscrimination test\"\" to ensure that the plan benefits all employees, not just the owners and management. So voting with your feet might be the best way to spark improvement with your employer. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1da2dcdf3961aa33415eaac5f39da5ee", "text": "\"Hah! Edit: to elaborate, markets are closed. Unless your firm made a bunch of moves before EOD Friday, there's very little they can do to avoid the bloodshed (if there is any after the vote on Sunday) come Monday morning. Not to mention most 401k funds have contractual limits placed on them in terms of how much they can do in terms of buy/sell actions in a given window of time - usually that's a good protection, however in \"\"outlier\"\" occurrences it's a really, really bad thing. Now, if you're in it for the long haul (in your 20s-early 30s) it's no big deal (yes, you'd be better off in a panic if you divested, but short-term drops are somewhat built into the long-term model). If you're about to retire I'd be really, really nervous.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b34aa7326520b675b329ec563884becd", "text": "\"I can't find a decent duplicate, so here are some general guidelines: First of all by \"\"stocks\"\" the answers generally mean \"\"equities\"\" which could be either single stocks or mutual funds that consist of stocks. Unless you have lots of experience that can help you discern good stocks from bad, investing in mutual funds reduces the risk considerably. If you want to fine-tune the plan, you can weigh certain categories higher to change your risk/return profile (e.g. equity funds will have higher returns and risk than fixed income (bond) funds, so if you want to take a little more risk you can put more in equity funds and less in fixed income funds). Lastly, don't stress too much over the individual investments. The most important thing is that you get as much company match as you can. You cannot beat the 100% return that comes from a company match. The allocation is mostly insignificant compared to that. Plus you can probably change your allocation later easily and cheaply if you don't like it. Disclaimer: these are _general_ guidelines for 401(k) investing in general and not personal advice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25e9235db8a378409eeffee310d4fb6c", "text": "\"If I were in your shoes I'd probably take the Vanguard Total Market fund with Admiral shares, then worry about further diversification when there is more in the account. Many times when you \"\"diversify\"\" in to multiple funds you end up with a lot of specific security overlap. A lot of the big S&P 500 constituents will be in all of them, etc. So while the 10 or so basis points difference in expense ratio doesn't seem like enough of a reason NOT to spread in to multiple funds, once you split up the money between Large, Mid, Small cap funds and Growth, Value, Dividend funds you'll probably have a collection of holdings that looks substantially similar to a total market fund anyway. Unless you're looking for international or some specific industry segment exposure and all of the money is going to equities anyway, an inexpensive total market fund makes a lot of sense.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a448d95f22d848cd9953392e69d8a3c6", "text": "If you exceed the income limit for deducting a traditional IRA (which is very low if you are covered by a 401(k) ), then your IRA options are basically limited to a Roth IRA. The Cramer person probably meant to compare 401(k) and IRA from the same pre-/post-tax-ness, so i.e. Traditional 401(k) vs. Traditional IRA, or Roth 401(k) vs. Roth IRA. Comparing a Roth investment against a Traditional investment goes into a whole other topic that only confuses what is being discussed here. So if deducting a traditional IRA is ruled out, then I don't think Cramer's advice can be as simply applied regarding a Traditional 401(k). (However, by that logic, and since most people on 401(k) have Traditional 401(k), and if you are covered by a 401(k) then you cannot deduct a Traditional IRA unless you are super low income, that would mean Cramer's advice is not applicable in most situations. So I don't really know what to think here.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "568cdc8bc1ffceb1b886706a7fa2092e", "text": "The first question is essentially asking for specific investment advice which is off-topic per the FAQ, but I'll take a stab at #2 and #3 (2) If my 401k doesn't change before I leave my job (not planned in the near future), I should roll it over into my Roth IRA after I leave due to these high expense ratios, correct? My advice is that you should roll over a 401K into an IRA the first chance you get (usually when you leave the job). 401K plans are NOTORIOUS for high expense ratios and why leave your money in a plan where you have a limited choice of investments anyway versus a self-directed IRA where you can invest in anything you want? (3) Should I still max contribute with these horrible expense ratios? If they are providing a match, yes. Even with the expense ratios it is hard to beat the immediate return of an employer match. If they aren't matching, the answer is still probably yes for a few reasons: You already are maxing out your ability to contribute to sheltered accounts, so assuming you still want to sock away that money for retirement, the tax benefits are still valuable and probably offset the expense ratios. Although you seem to be an exception, it is hard for most people to be disciplined enough to put money in a retirement account after they have it in their hands (versus auto-deduction from paychecks).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2ae3e850c9a05b457725c0e854dd8f8", "text": "The problem is that short-term trends are really unpredictable. There is nobody who can accurately predict where a fund (or even moreso, a single stock or bond) is going to move in a few hours, or days or even months. The long-term trends of the entire market, however, are (more or less) predictable. There is a definite upward bias when you look at time-scales of 5, 10, 20 years and more. Individual stocks and bonds may crash, and different sectors perform differently from year to year, but the market as a whole has historically always risen over long time scales. Of course, past performance never guarantees future performance. It is possible that everything could crash and never come back, but history shows that this would be incredibly unlikely. Which is the entire basis for strategies based on buying and holding (and periodically rebalancing) a portfolio containing funds that cover all market sectors. Now, regarding your 401(k), you know your time horizon. The laws won't let you withdraw money without penalty until you reach retirement age - this might be 40 years, depending on your current age. So we're definitely talking long term. You shouldn't care about where the market goes over a few months if you won't be using the money until 20 years from now. The most important thing for a 401(k) is to choose funds from those available to you that will be as diverse as possible. The actual allocation strategy is something you will need to work out with a financial advisor, since it will be different for every person. Once you come up with an appropriate allocation strategy, you will want to buy according to those ratios with every paycheck and rebalance your funds to those ratios whenever they start to drift away. And review the ratios with your advisor every few years, to keep them aligned with large-scale trends and changes in your life.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58f374b3ac883e18ece5a9fca4e36f9d", "text": "\"You're getting great wisdom and options. Establishing your actionable path will require the details that only you know, such as how much is actually in each paycheck (and how much tax is withheld), how much do you spend each month (and yearly expenses too), how much spending can you actually cut or replace, how comfortable are you with considering (or not considering) unexpected/emergency spending. You mentioned you were cash-poor, but only you know what your current account balances are, which will affect your actions and priorities. Btw, interestingly, your \"\"increase 401k contributions by 2% each year\"\" will need to end before hitting the $18K contribution limit. I took some time and added the details you posted into a cash-flow program to see your scenario over the next few years. There isn't a \"\"401k loan\"\" activity in this program yet, so I build the scenario from other simple activities. You seem financially minded enough to continue modeling on your own. I'm posting the more difficult one for you (borrow from 401k), but you'll have to input your actual balances, paycheck and spending. My spending assumptions must be low, and I entered $70K as \"\"take-home,\"\" so the model looks like you've got lots of cash. If you choose to play with it, then consider modeling some other scenarios from the advice in the other posts. Here's the \"\"Borrow $6500 from 401k\"\" scenario model at Whatll.Be: https://whatll.be/d1x1ndp26i/2 To me, it's all about trying the scenarios and see which one seems to work with all of the details. The trick is knowing what scenarios to try, and how to model them. Full disclosure: I needed to do similar planning, so I wrote Whatll.Be and I now share it with other people. It's in beta, so I'm testing it with scenarios like yours. (Notice most of the extra activity occurs on 2018-Jan-01)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adcac9daef6494746ba56b310d7d65cc", "text": "A terrific resource is this article. To summarize the points given: PROS: CONS: There is no generic yes or no answer as to whether you ought to max out your 401(k)s. If you are a sophisticated investor, then saving the income for investing could be a better alternative. Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% in the US, so if you buy and hold on to good companies that reinvest their earnings, then the share price keeps going up and you'll save a lot of money that would go in taxes. If you're not a very good investor, however, then 401(k)s make a lot of sense. If you're going to end up setting up some asset allocation and buying ETFs and rebalancing or having a manager rebalance for you every year or so, then you might as well take the 401(k) option and lower your taxable income. Point #1 is simply wrong, because companies that reinvest earnings and growing for a long time are essentially creating tax-free gains for you, which is even better than tax-deferred gains. Nonetheless, most people have neither the time nor the interest to research companies and for them, the 401(k) makes more sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53b48561bdd124cd5788fb728db3024b", "text": "I'd argue that you should be focusing on avoiding taxation and maximizing employer matching funds as your first objective. Over a longer period, quality of investment options and fees will both drive your account value. A personal IRA account is usually a better value over time -- so contribute as much as possible to your IRA, and rollover 401k accounts whenever you have an opportunity to do so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbe09b887ad9d055b33d437d3cc8b65f", "text": "At 22yo, unless you have a terminal illness, you have many years to earn and save a lot more that you will have in your 401k right now (unless you have already been extremely lucky in the market with your 401k investments). This means that even if you lost everything in your 401k right now, it probably wouldn't hurt you that much over the long term. The net present value of all your future savings should far exceed the net present value of your 401k, if you plan to earn and save responsibly. So take as much risk as you want with it right now. There is no real benefit to playing safe with investments at your age. If you were asking me how much risk should you be taking with a $10m inheritance and no income or much prospects of an income, then I'd be giving you a very different answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "194bc6ba5c4129ec87feafec8cf788d9", "text": "With a match, the 401(k) becomes the priority, up to that match, often ahead of other high interest debt. Without the match, the analysis is more about the cost within the 401(k). The 401(k) is a tax deferred account (let's not go on a tangent to Roth 401(k)) so ideally, you'd be skimming off money at 25% and saving it till you retire, so some of it is taxed at 0, 10, 15%. If the fees in the 401(k) are say 1.5% between the underlying funds and management fee, it doesn't take long to wipe out the potential 10 or 15% you are trying to gain. Yes, there's a risk that cap gain rates go away, but with today's tax law, the long term rate is 15%. So that money put into a long term low cost ETF will have reinvested dividends taxed at 15% and upon sale, a 15% rate on the gains. There are great index ETFs with sub - .1% annual cost. My simple answer is - If the total cost in that 401(k) is .5% or higher, I'd pass. Save the money in an outside account, using IRAs as best you can. (The exact situation needs to be looked at very carefully. In personal finance, there's a lot of 'grey'. For example, a frequent job changer can view the 401(k) as a way of saving pretax, knowing the fee will only last 2 years, and will end with a transfer to the IRA)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abedfb33f3b34c86677e9bbbec5b8e35", "text": "\"Open an investment account on your own and have them roll the old 401K accounts into either a ROTH or traditional IRA. Do not leave them in old 401k accounts and definitely don't roll them into your new employer's 401K. Why? Well, as great as 401K accounts are, there is one thing that employers rarely mention and the 401K companies actively try to hide: Most 401K plans are loaded with HUGE fees. You won't see them on your statements, they are often hidden very cleverly with accounting tricks. For example, in several plans I have participated in, the mutual fund symbols may LOOK like the ones you see on the stock tickers, but if you read the fine print they only \"\"approximate\"\" the underlying mutual fund they are named for. That is, if you multiply the number of shares by the market price you will arrive at a number higher than the one printed on your statement. The \"\"spread\"\" between those numbers is the fee charged by the 401K management company, and since employees don't pick that company and can't easily fire them, they aren't very competitive unless your company is really large and has a tough negotiator in HR. If you work for a small company, you are probably getting slammed by these fees. Also, they often charge fees for the \"\"automatic rebalancing\"\" service they offer to do annually to your account to keep your allocation in line with your current contribution allocations. I have no idea why it is legal for them not to disclose these fees on the statements, but they don't. I had to do some serious digging to find this out on my own and when I did it was downright scary. In one case they were siphoning off over 3% annually from the account using this standard practice. HOWEVER, that is not to say that you shouldn't participate in these plans, especially if there is an employer match. There are fees with any investment account and the \"\"free money\"\" your employer is kicking in almost always offsets these fees. My point here is just that you shouldn't keep the money in the 401K after you leave the company when you have an option to move it to an account with much cheaper fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07f7202017432ca3558e5ec9494595bc", "text": "Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings. Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "464cbae1aff1457fc0fc804fb43863e4", "text": "I have coworker who reported that he leased a Nissan Leaf from 2013-2016 and was offered $4000 off the contracted purchase price at the end of the lease due to a glut of other lessees turning in for a lease on the newest model with greater range. It's not clear that this experience will be repeated by others three years from now, but there is enough uncertainty in the future electric car market that it's quite possible to have faster depreciation on a new vehicle than you might otherwise expect based on experience with conventional internal combustion powered vehicles. Leasing will remove that uncertainty. Purchasing a lease-return can also offer great value. I looked at the price for a lease return + a new battery with the extended range, and it was still significantly cheaper than buying a completely new vehicle.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
13b9e22cfb0f1663b0643f416043c833	Exotic Car Flipping as a Strategic Investment? (US-CAN)	[ { "docid": "168704f710afdf153cf1d910d90c06eb", "text": "\"You can greatly reduce the risk if you can line up a buyer prior to purchasing the car. That kind of thing is common in business, one example is drop shipping. Also there are sales companies that specialize in these kinds of things bringing manufacturers of goods together with customers. The sales companies never take delivery of the product, just a commission on the sales. From this the manufacturers are served as they have gained a customer for their goods. The buying company is served as they can make a \"\"better\"\" end product. The two parties may have not been brought together had it not been for the sales company so on some level both are happy to pay for the service. Can you find market inequalities and profit from them? Sure. I missed a great opportunity recently. I purchased a name brand shirt from a discount store for $20. Those shirts typically sell on ebay for $80. I should have cleaned out that store's inventory, and I bet someone else did as by the time I went back they were gone. That kind of thing was almost risk-less because if the shirts did not sell, I could simply return them for the full purchase price. That and I can afford to buy a few hundred dollars worth of shirts. Can you afford to float 45K CDN? What if it takes a year to sell the car? What if the economy goes sour and you are left \"\"holding the bag\"\"? Why are not car dealers doing exactly what you propose? Here in the US this type of thing is called \"\"horse trading\"\" and is very common. I've both lost and made money on these kind of deals. I would never put a significant amount of my net worth at risk.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9d917c533e1f467fdc043cc786853554", "text": "The ROI percentage becomes a meaningless figure at that point and would either be infinite or a very large number if you assume an equity investment of $1 or $0.01. At that point it's obviously a lucrative deal as long as it works out so the bigger question is what are the risks of it not working out and what's the ROIC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c1f22eaf15339096f3355287cd19ce8", "text": "\"I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea. Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown. For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, \"\"The Big Short,\"\" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the \"\"short-term\"\" part. If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment. This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term \"\"leverage\"\" for the term \"\"margin\"\". Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff. Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money. Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging. This is why you should view leverage with great caution. It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells. But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this! Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make. Be careful, my friend.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bd71d2b21416caa623fa525043c3812", "text": "That's not 100% correct, as some leveraged vehicles choose to re-balance on a monthly basis making them less risky (but still risky). If I'm not mistaken the former oil ETN 'DXO' was a monthly re-balance before it was shut down by the 'man' Monthly leveraged vehicles will still suffer slippage, not saying they won't. But instead of re-balancing 250 times per year, they do it 12 times. In my book less iterations equals less decay. Basically you'll bleed, just not as much. I'd only swing trade something like this in a retirement account where I'd be prohibited from trading options. Seems like you can get higher leverage with less risk trading options, plus if you traded LEAPS, you could choose to re-balance only once per year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "056aeb49e9325bdf21c67478a15cab1e", "text": "\"It's not my industry so I may be wrong, but I don't believe there are any transactions or companies that would provide a worthwhile comparable, hence my problem with the valuation attempt. For the same reasons you wouldn't use a P/E multiple or DDM model on a startup, you don't just pick tangential comparables and slap a value on it. If you're seriously advising companies, that shit will land you in court defending your valuation. It's not a \"\"floor\"\" just because you know it's inaccurate.. it's irrelevant. Quite frankly, I don't think they released any value, let alone $1bn. It's merely a PR move, with the hope that Tesla's technology will become the standard for all EVs. At best, major companies decide to use some of their patents \"\"in good faith\"\" and leverage the infrastructure that Tesla has already put in place. At worst, Tesla still did not give away $1bn in value. How much have they made off of licensing their patents? How much have others offered for their patents? How many companies are infringing, and how many lawsuits have they won from going after them? If you can't put a hard figure on any of those, or a solid rationale on how the patents are the only reason they'll be able to gain market share, then I don't see how we can conclude on $1bn given away.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62434a140f0cfd64e57c57b6ba1b6a0a", "text": "\"I have a friend who had went on a seminar with FortuneBuilders (the company that has Than Merrill as CEO). He told me that one of the things taught in that seminar was how to find funding for the property that you want to flip. One of the things he mentioned was that there are so-called \"\"hard money\"\" lenders who are willing to lend you the money for the property in exchange for getting their name on the property title. Last time I checked it looked like here in Florida we had at least Bridgewell Capital and Fairview Commercial Lending that were in that business. These hard money lenders get their investment back when the house is sold. So there is some underlying expectation that the house can be sold with some profit (to reimburse both the lender and you for your work). That friend of mine did tell me that he had flipped a house once but that he did not receive the funding to that from a lender but from an in-law, however it was through a similar arrangement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "276a698e578e85d0ec7b4898cd575268", "text": "Look at Price/book value and there are more than a few stocks that may have a P/B under 1 so this does happen. There are at least a couple of other factors you aren't considering here: Current liabilities - How much money is the company losing each quarter that may cause it to sell repeatedly. If the company is burning through $100 million/quarter that asset is only going to keep the lights on for another 2.5 years so consider what assumptions you make about the company's cash flow here. The asset itself - Is the price really fixed or could it be flexible? Could the asset seen as being worth $1 billion today be worth much less in another year or two? As an example, suppose the asset was a building and then real estate values drop by 40% in that area. Now, what was worth $1 billion may now be worth only $600 million. As something of a final note, you don't state where the $100 million went that the company received as if that was burned for operations, now the company's position on the asset is $900 million as it only holds a 90% stake though I'd argue my 2 previous points are really worth noting. The Following 6 Stocks Are Trading At or Below 0.5 x Book Value–Sep 2013 has a half dozen examples of how this is possible. If the $100 million was used to pay off debt, then the company doesn't have that cash and thus its assets are reduced by the cash that is gone. Depending on what the plant is producing the value may or may not stay where it is. If you want an example to consider, how would you price automobile plants these days? If the company experiences a reduction in demand, the plant may have to be sold off at a reduced price for a cynic's view here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c81dbb5bcf9de91c3000669d11ebe0d", "text": "As BobbyScon said in the comments, invest in a company that is developing in that field. Or invest in a company which supplies that field. The people who got rich in the California gold rush were those selling shovels and other miners' supplies. Or bet against whatever you think this will displace. If automobiles are the hot new thing, it might be a bad time to invest in harness leather. Or ... figure out how else it might impact the economy and invest appropriately. But you have to do that evaluation yourself. Or ignore it and stick with your existing strategy, which should have been diversified enough to deliver reasonable results whether this sector takes off or not. Remember that if someone gives you a free tip, they are probably just hoping to pump up the value of their own stock rather than help you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ba990649e6c9220ec937aa97e31bcd2", "text": "\"No. Suppose you have 100 Canadian dollars and the exchange rate is 2 CAD = 1 USD. You use your 100 CAD to purchase 50 USD (in your bank account that is in USD). Some time later the Canadian dollar grows stronger, so that now 1 CAD = 1 USD. If you now withdraw your 50 USD and get Canadian dollars, you will receive 50 CAD. You have lost half your money. If you want to make money on currency exchange rates (which is a risky plan), you should buy the currency that is cheap (i.e., \"\"weak\"\"). If, say, oil is very cheap, you don't make money by selling oil; you buy it and sell it later when the price goes up. Likewise, if the Canadian dollar isn't worth much and the US dollar is, you should buy Canadian dollars, not US dollars, hoping to sell them later when the exchange rate is more favorable. See also this similar question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f37a9a8ab361e1370dd314922cfb9b84", "text": "My current strategy is long equity in blue chips with limited growth but large profits... Some call that value investing. GM, AAPL, BRK.B have done very well for me. VZ is a notable straggler. Regardless, my overall positions have grown considerably :) Not a fan of shorting... but TSLA would be my short of choice since it is very expensive to short SHLD.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0cc2ee8bcf8cd7e18ceef9936872781", "text": "\"You need to negotiate with your broker to allow you to do more exotic order types. One in particular I recommend is a \"\"hidden\"\" aka iceberg order. You enter two numbers. The first is the number of shares for your entire order, the second is the amount that will be displayed in the book (this is the tip of the iceberg, the remaining shares are hidden below the surface). The maker/taker rule applies as follows: The amount displayed will receive the rebate for providing liquidity. The amount hidden will be charged the fee for taking liquidity. Example: You want to sell 10,000 shares total. You enter a hidden order for 10,000 shares with 1,000 displayed. On the level 2 screen traders will see 1,000 shares, and those shares will stay displayed there until the entire order is filled. You receive a rebate for 1,000 shares, you pay the brokerage fee for 9,000 shares. Also, like one of the previous posters mentioned, only trade high liquidity stocks. Large market cap companies with high volume. This is why day traders love Tesla, Amazon, Netflix, etc. Large market cap, high volume, and high volatility. Easy to catch $10+ moves in price. Hope this helps Happy trading\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02c8e697d20dcb9d21f4bc92bce2ac16", "text": "With $7 Million at stake I guess it would be prudent to take legal advise as well as advise from qualified CA. Forex trading for select currency pair [with one leg in INR] is allowed. Ex USDINR, EURINR, JPYINR, GBPINR. Forex trading for pairs without INR or not in the above list is NOT allowed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "637f9894595549c7a740ca88ecfd5fbc", "text": "\"Thanks for the article. A couple questions: - Is your basic investment premise that as defaults rise, investors will demand higher rates, and thus loans will become more expensive for borrowers? Why can't the lenders include a larger reserve to offset defaults (making loans less profitable for them?), or why doesn't this just wipe out the riskiest tranches of abs? Does it have to result in an implosion in supply? - \"\"Since 2009, car loans have exploded over $1.1 Trillion\"\"- wouldn't car loans increase significantly from the bottom of the Great Recession as the economy recovered? Also, the graph shows the billions of car loans. I think you'd have to look at an inflation adjusted loan origination, as cars do not cost the same today as they did 1970, so, you'd expect the total dollar value of loans to be much higher. - \"\"How many borrowers are using their cars as collateral for new debt?\"\" Are you asking how many are refinance their cars? I don't think this is a thing. Cars depreciate and most of the time, the value of the car is less than loan. People may be rolling over into a new car and loan but I don't think they are re-mortgaging their cars. I could be wrong but there has to be information available on this - \"\"We do this through purchasing long dated 1-2 year out-of-the-money PUT options on first order stocks\"\"- How do you know where the strike price on these stocks will be? If your very confident, you can sell a call above to offset the cost of the put. Or alternatively, why don't you buy a credit default swap on the abs tranches?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab9131fad945a1648aa94139b727c914", "text": "\"I don't think that there is a generic answer that will apply to this question across all goods. The answer depends on how the related businesses work, how much insight you have into the true value of the goods, and probably other things. Your car example is a good one that shows multiple options - There are dealers who will buy as a single transaction, sell as a single transaction, or do a simultaneous sell with trade-in. I had a hot tub once, on the other hand, where I could find people who would do a trade-in, but there was no dealer who would just buy my used tub. There's not much parallel between the car and the tub because the options available are very different. To the extent that there is a generic answer, I generally agree with the point in @keshlam's answer about trying to avoid entrapment, but I take a slightly different view. If you want to get your best deal, you need to have an idea going into the process of what you want in net and keep focused on meeting your goal. If for some reason, it's convenient for the dealer to \"\"move money around\"\" between the new car and the trade-in, I'm ok with that as long as I'm getting what I want out of the deal. If possible, I prefer to deal with both transactions at once because it's simpler. At the same time, I'm willing to remove the trade-in from the deal if I'm not getting what I want. (Threatening to do so can also give you some information about where the dealer really puts the value between the new car and trade-in since, if you threaten to pull the trade-in, the price on the car will probably change in response.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1c02cfe89cd79523cd3be82b679843e", "text": "\"Not necessarily. Shorting XOM is saying that EM (china + india) are going to have a \"\"slowdown\"\" (not neg growth but slower) and that US is going to pick up a lot slower. Selling JNJ means the manager is overall bearish but doesn't have that much conviction (otherwise he would sell XOM or SPY), but still wants that negative exposure. Personally, both are just plays on SPY with increased risk (XOM) or decreased risk (JNJ).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d62eaf61d9969c444c838eecff3eab4a", "text": ">Something to watch out for if you are analyzing this stuff though is the influx of used cars into the market. Remember, more defaults means more repossessions which means more used cars on the market. I think Morgan Stanley said they expect to see up to a 50% decline in used car prices over the next four years. Edit: [Can't find the report, but here's the Market Watch summary](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-much-morgan-stanley-thinks-used-car-prices-will-crater-in-one-chart-2017-04-03)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9d4a98e94a42ba1b25a23c2cc56b97f4	How to protect your parents if they never paid Social Security?	[ { "docid": "4c2f05fb85d04c105e4c15559d75fbd1", "text": "Wow. She really is in a pickle. Even though I can intellectualize that she ought have paid more attention to her family's finances, and assuming she wasn't complicit in her husband's obvious tax evasion, I can sympathize to some extent. This is a great demonstration of how dangerous it is to just let your spouse handle all the finances because they understand the money stuff. Even if they pay the bills you should have at least a fundamental understanding of the taxes being paid, estate and retirement plans. So here's some practical advice based on the hole she has dug for herself:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81d4c9dde5cf45b2a21452b978de607f", "text": "I'm not unsympathetic, but insurance of what kind? I don't know how he'd have owned a restaurant but failed to pay into the social security system. Was he paying taxes at all? As for the 'why,' there's not enough checks and balances to make sure that nothing is done under the table. I believe 40 quarters of work would have qualified her for a benefit of some kind, but you say she didn't pay in either. Both people didn't pay into the system, either on purpose or by not understanding the need to do so. This is a sad situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ca04e72c93197fa230569f9cddd65d4", "text": "I am unsympathetic. His mother made a conscious choice to evade taxes that would have provided her with at least a minimal security when she was too old to work. First while as business owner she should have been paying self employment tax on the income they made through the restaurant and his other merchant activities. Second while working in her own career selling Mary Kay and side work she should have paid her taxes on her income from that. There is a part of me that says good on you for getting by with out getting caught. But her ultimate failure was to plan for her future. She should have known she would be ineligible for SSI and saved for her retirement. Instead she choose to spend her money while benefiting from the government services that the rest of us pay taxes for. Now we will provide her with medicaid as well as welfare benefits. She has placed her son in the unenviable situation of having to either provide for his mother because she failed to do the minimum planning for herself or turn his back on her. He might be able to find a sympathetic prosecutor who would prosecute her for tax evasion. The government would take care of her needs(food and housing) and she would get her medical care taken care of. He could also move to Alaska. The oil industry provide residents of Alaska with a stipend, there is lots of work for people willing to work hard, and the compensation for that work is pretty good and would likely put him in a position where he is able to provide care for his mother.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "24e7fcdfb6bcd46bf5f29fde5e5fd71d", "text": "\"Of course, doing nothing would mean that Social Security won't be able to meet its full obligations two decades from now. But it's not going bankrupt. Bankrupt, as defined in Oxford English Dictionary: \"\"[U]nable to pay outstanding debts.\"\" Am I missing something?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5f03235ea83b12adf6d7f70d2b314c1", "text": "The difference is, outside of a small period in the 70s, this is the first time that events are converging that will very likely make it true. Short of the emergence of an industry that can economically support us for the next 20-30 years (which is essentially one part of what saved us during the 70s, with the computer revolution), the options that exist for Social Security are: 1. Increase benefits age. 2. Decrease payouts (either by nominally decreasing them, or de facto decreasing them by not keeping pace with inflation). 3. Print the money to pay back the IOUs that are the foundation of Social Security today (resulting in massively inflated money supply and lower purchasing power of the payouts). So while it might be true that this was discussed, because of the massive size of the system and the economic might of the United States, there was never really a threat of it actively impacting a generation until now. That aside, the Social Security argument was only one arm of the discussion. The Gen X generation, if the economy doesn't recover, is going to be the first generation to have to figure out what retirement means when your entire generation is lacking resources to support itself (compared against the WWI generation (savings, not possible now with inflation), the Greatest Generation (pensions, which are gone), and the Baby Boomers (401k and remnants of Social Security system)).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2b3ac3e04f16008caaa1ceb136d3ef0", "text": "If you think that your parents' home is in danger, you might want to check what it would take to make sure their house is safe, and what the financial situation actually is. You are paying rent, there are brothers who may or may not be paying rent. We don't have the information, you have. Saving that house might be a worthwhile investment. I assume that if you moved out, either rented or by buying a house, they wouldn't get any rent from you anymore and whatever the situation is, it would be much worse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae41578fb8efac0c135eb85fedcc4559", "text": "The request for your parent's income comes from Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Unearned Income. I typically see this form appear as I'm doing my daughter's taxes and start to enter data from stock transactions. In other words, your earned income is your's. But if you are a dependent, or 'can be,' the flow avoids the potentially lucrative results from gifting children appreciated stock, and have them take the gain at their lower, potentially zero cap gain rate. I suggest you grab a coffee and thumb through Pub 929 Tax Rules for Children and Dependents to understand this better. From page 14 of the linked doc - Parent's return information not available. If a child can’t get the required information about his or her parent's tax return, the child (or the child's legal representative) can request the necessary information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). How to request. After the end of the tax year, send a signed, written request for the information to the Internal Revenue Service Center where the parent's return will be filed. (The IRS can’t process a request received before the end of the tax year.) It also suggests that you file for an extension for the due date of your return. Include payment for the tax you expect to pay, say by plugging in $200K for parent income as an estimate. My parents' accountant tells them I do not need it. Well, a piece of software told you that you do, and 3 people on line who collectively qualify as experts documented why. (Note, I am not full of myself. This board operates via the wisdom of crowds. Members DStanley, and Ben Miller, commented and edited to help me form a well documented response that would be tough to argue against.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f21ec97109e0e7d9f35394f8d38f6c5", "text": "If you can still work or have income to support yourself, I would wait. contrary to some media reports, Social Security has enough money to cover full benefits for a number of years to come, and there are solutions that don't involve cutting payouts. And as mentioned before it is likely you'll be grandfathered in if there are cuts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91059ff2cd7123e0b0c1010e72cb10c7", "text": "If anyone hasn't done this yet, all three companies have waived the fees. I just did it and a couple weeks ago, I set up an account with the Social Security Administration where you can get notified any time someone is trying to use your social security number. There's two-step authentication as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c678bd788c38788989da1ab4bd3e480", "text": "Why is it OK for companies to lose all of our personal information with absolutely no penalties? If the government fined these companies a dollar per SS number lost you bet your ass they'd start actually paying attention to security for a change.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "110b7d50a5d8e2def6023335f627ac1b", "text": "While stealing the identities of the deceased for claiming their social security benefits and so on is not new, this is the first I'd heard of someone stealing identities for the purpose of going after their tax refunds. I'd think it wouldn't be that worthwhile, considering the punishment likely if you get caught.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4217f4b58b17bf01e6deb8e2a43bf894", "text": "The Employee Benefits Security Administration within the US Department of Labor is tasked with keeping track of pension and 401K programs. The even have a website to search for abandoned plans: it helps participants and others find out whether a particular plan is in the process of being, or has been, terminated and the name of the Qualified Termination Administrator (QTA) responsible for the termination. The Employee Benefits Security Administration discuss all types of details regarding retirement programs. This document What You Should Know About Your Retirement Plan has a lot of details including this: If your former employer has gone out of business, arrangements should have been made so a plan official remains responsible for the payment of benefits and other plan business. If you are entitled to benefits and are unable to contact the plan administrator, contact EBSA electronically at askebsa.dol.gov or by calling toll free at 1-866-444-3272. There are also EBSA offices spread thought the United States", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de6d817069222c9fc39f519b322d65f8", "text": "\"Step one: Contact the collection agency. Tell them that they have the wrong person, and the same name is just a coincidence. I would NOT give them my correct social security number, birth date, or other identifying information. This could be a total scam for the purpose of getting you to give them such personal identifying information so they can perform an identity theft. Even if it is a legitimate debt collection agency, if they are overzealous and/or incompetent, they may enter your identifying information into their records. \"\"Oh, you say your social security number isn't 123-45-6789, but 234-56-7890. Thank you, let me update our records. Now, sir, I see that the social security number in our records matches your social security number ...\"\" Step two: If they don't back off, contact a lawyer. Collection agencies work by -- call it \"\"intimidation\"\" or \"\"moral persuasion\"\", depending on your viewpoint. Years after my wife left me, she went bankrupt. A collection agency called me demanding payment of her debts before the bankruptcy went through. I noticed two things about this: One, We were divorced and I had no responsibility for her debts. Somehow they tracked down my new address and phone number, a place where she had never even lived. Why should I pay her debts? I had no legal obligation, nor did I see any moral obligation. Two, Their pitch was that she/I should pay off this debt before the bankruptcy was final. Why would anyone do that? The whole point of declaring bankruptcy is so you don't have to pay these debts. They were hoping to intimidate her into paying even though she wouldn't be legally obligated to pay. If you don't owe the money, of course there's no reason why you should pay it. If they continue to pursue you for somebody else's debt, in the U.S. you can sue them for harassment. There are all sorts of legal limits on what collection agencies are allowed to do. Actually even if they do back off, it might be worth contacting a lawyer. I suspect that asking your employer to garnish your wages without a court order, without even proof that you are responsible for this debt, is a tort that you could sue them for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57287b1883e7c6b41e47eb1e7699abab", "text": "What happens to a minor if the parents are missing, or incapacitated, or deceased should be planned now, and not end up a matter for the courts to decide. You might need to sit down with a family lawyer as well as a fee based financial planner, to make sure you have addressed all the relevant details. These details would include where they would live, money, and what the money should be used for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04e75850e4483364cea159dc4e7a85ee", "text": "The biggest issue I can see is that in order to have your parents protected properly, they'll have to register an interest in the property (ie, the 25%). I can't see the mortgage lender being too happy to have a second lienholder on the house for a total of 100% of the purchase price. Usually their conditions state that they'll need to be informed of other debts secured on the house and might actually have a say in that. Another way of accomplishing this is putting your parents on the house's deeds but that might also complicate matters with the lender and cause additional problems when it comes to selling the property. Not to mention that if anything bad happens to your parents, their stake in your property would be counted as one of their assets and you might find yourself in the situation where you have to come up with 25% of the property value right now or you might find that you have to sell the property to the first bidder simply because you do need the money as quickly as possible. Personally I wouldn't do it (especially without legal advice), the legal structure can be a nightmare and you'll just end up painted into a corner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7dd0a115c57770d3e36a8504cef1e68", "text": "What, if anything, do I need to do? Thanks! Nothing really. Depending on what information you provided on SS-4, the IRS may come asking for payroll tax returns etc. In that case you'll have to respond describing the situation. If they don't - you won't.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78acae2e9f2f66879ed59137f5c79dba", "text": "This is a topic you need to sit down and discuss with your parents. Income taxes probably aren't going to be a big issue, and will be refunded in April. Social Security and Medicare will not be refunded, but start you on the road to qualifying for them in the future. How much of you expenses you will now cover will be a family decision; how much of your college expenses you will be responsible for will also need to be discussed. These topics need to be understood before it is time to apply to schools in the fall of your senior year of high school. It is nice to know that you are at least thinking about saving money for your future and for emergencies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76946623d9eb300b802e6cd320d93f6b", "text": "\"If they allowed people to skip reporting the funds \"\"even though I might not intend to use this money to help my kids through college\"\", then children of a Billionaire would be eligible for financial aid. In addition you might have reported all your income to the IRS, but the rest of the government isn't able to see that information.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
441f7eb8a901445fade2783438b50efd	Should I buy a home or rent in my situation?	[ { "docid": "e6bafc178dad29c3bf694d00227deaf5", "text": "\"If I were you, I would rent. Wait to buy a home. Here is why: When you say that renting is equal in cost to a 30-year mortgage, you are failing to consider several aspects. See this recent answer for a list of things that need to be considered when comparing buying and renting. You have no down payment. Between the two of you, you have $14,000, but this money is needed for both your emergency fund and your fiancée's schooling. In your words: \"\"we can’t reeaallllly afford a home.\"\" A home is a big financial commitment. If you buy a home before you are financially ready, it will be continuous trouble. If you need a cosigner, you aren't ready to buy a home. I would absolutely advise whoever you are thinking about cosigning for you not to do so. It puts them legally on the hook for a house that you can't yet afford. You aren't married yet. You should never buy something as big as a home with someone you aren't married to; there are just too many things that can go wrong. (See comments for more explanation.) Wait until you are married before you buy. Your income is low right now. And that is okay for now; you've been able to avoid the credit card debt that so many people fall into. However, you do have student loans to pay, and taking on a huge new debt right now would be potentially disastrous for you. Your family income will eventually increase when your fiancée gets her degree and gets a job, and at that time, you will be in a much better situation to consider buying a house. You need to move \"\"ASAP.\"\" Buying a house when you are in a hurry is a generally a bad idea. When you look for a home, you need to take some time looking so you aren't rushed into a bad deal that you will regret. Even if you decide you want to buy, you should first find a place to rent; then you can take your time finding the right house. To answer your question about escrow: When you own a house, two of the required expenses that you will have besides the mortgage payment are property taxes and homeowner's insurance. These are large payments that are only due once a year. The bank holding the mortgage wants to make sure that they get paid. So to help you budget for these expenses and to ensure that these expenses are paid, the bank will add these to your monthly mortgage payment, and set them aside in a savings account (called an escrow account). Then when these bills come due once a year, they are paid for out of the escrow account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d76950948564e5b0699a3a4997b46d0", "text": "First, you are not a loser nor an idiot! You have avoided many debt mistakes and have a stable income. This move will be good for you and your family and an opportunity to continue to build your life together. The fact you are even thinking about this and asking questions shows that you are responsible. To your rent/buy question, Ben Miller has a great summary in his answer. I have nothing more to add except that you already know you cannot buy. That question is not really your main problem. You need some financial goals and then you need a plan to achieve those goals. As you become more educated about finances, it can be like drinking from a fire hose. Trying to analyze too much information can paralyze you and make you 'freak out' that you are messing everything up! Try this. Think about where you want to be in 5 years or so. Write down with your fiance some of those dreams and goals. Maybe things like finish college degree(s), buy a house, pay off student loans, wedding, have more kids, etc... As you prioritize these things, you will see that some are short-term goals and some are long-term. Then you lay out a step by step plan to get there. By focusing on each step at a time, you see more success and are more motivated. As you see movement towards your goals, you will be willing to sacrifice more to get there. You will be willing to rent a cheaper place with less room to make more headway on these things. This will be a several year plan, which is why it is so important to define your goals at the beginning. This will give you motivation and the mental toughness to follow through when it is difficult.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a405c923ef9d9630e97eaa6925869c1a", "text": "My experience with owning a home is that its like putting down roots and can be like an anchor holding you to an area. Before considering whether you can financially own a home consider some of the other implications. Once you own it you are stuck for awhile and cannot quickly move away like you can with renting. So if a better job opportunity comes up or your employer moves you to another office across town that doubles your commute time, you'll be regretting the home purchase as it will be a barrier to moving to a more convenient location. I, along with my fiancée and two children, are being forced to move out of my parents home ASAP. Do not rush buying a home. Take your time and find what you want. I made the mistake once of buying a home thinking I could take on some DIY remodeling to correct some features I wasn't fond of. Life intervenes and finding extra time for DIY house updates doesn't come easy, especially with children. Speaking of children, consider the school district when buying a home too. Often times homes in good school districts cost more. If you don't consider the school district now, then you may be faced with a difficult decision when the kids start school. IF you are confident you won't want to move anytime soon and can find a house you like and want to jump into home ownership there are some programs that can help first time buyers, but they can require some effort on your part. FHA has a first time buyer program with a 3.5% down payment. You will need to search for a lender that offers FHA loans and work with them. FHA covers this program by charging mortgage insurance every month that's part of your house payment. Fannie Mae has the HomeReady program where first time home buyers can purchase a foreclosed home from their inventory for as little as 3% down and possibly get up to 3% from the seller to apply toward closing costs. Private mortgage insurance (PMI) is required with this program too. Their inventory of homes can be found on the https://www.homepath.com/ website. There is also NACA, which requires attending workshops and creating a detailed plan to prove you're ready for homeownership. This might be a good option if they have workshops in your area and you want to talk with someone in person. https://www.naca.com/about/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f292e4ab092aa4b4f4f03464fc96cfd4", "text": "You said 2 things that made me think you are one of the rare young couples barely making it but should attempt to buy rather than rent anyway.... Around my area, renting a place is about equivalent to just paying a monthly mortgage of a 30yr 3.5% APR of a home priced at around $250,500. and... Our ideal price range would be $100,000-160,000 with a 25-30yr mortgage at 3.5 - 5.4% The other answers suggesting that you should rent and the reasons given were excellent ones but because of those 2 points you made, this tells me that you would be willing to live in a much much more basic house if you owned rather than rented. Many renters rent rather than buy because they want a really nice place for their money and are willing to spend what it takes to get a nice place, but not you. If you buy, you would be willing to take a place worth half or even less than half what you would get if you rented. That tells me you might accept a place that needs a little work. Perhaps you and/or your fiancée have some skills needed to do a little of the work yourself. I hope you decide to buy rather than rent if you can swing it, and instead of taking a 2nd job, spend all your spare time working on your little investment. It's possible that by the time you're done fixing that house up some, through your own creative efforts or through the help you might get from your friends, you could end up with a $250,000 house, own it, and reap all the great benefits of owning rather than renting...or...better yet, sell that place for a nice profit, then turn around and buy the next one already fixed up with your newly acquired great credit to help you with the new mortgage, and ready for you to move in and enjoy. It's how my wife and I got started (only we didn't have the benefit of historically low interest rates) and if we can do it, I believe you can too. Here are a couple tips that might help out....1) Don't spend a lot of money to fix the place...try to find the time to do the simpler tasks yourself. If you don't have the skills, you can learn them on youtube or by picking the brains of all the great willing people working at your local discount home project superstore. 2) Cosmetics go a long way towards increasing the value of a house. a) needs paint and b) needs carpet but not a) major structural damage and b) needs roof. Regarding some of your other points... HOA, hopefully if you buy in a formal community, the HOA should be less than $200. If it's more than that, it might be harder to do as I suggest. Closing Costs, probably more like 4 - 5% Taxes, monthly if included in mortgage, normally quarterly or semi-annually if not Utilities...you're budgeting quite high for that. Depending on your area, you might only spend an average of $200/month, maybe even less. Insurance...see answer for taxes Regular maintenance, $1K a year might be about right but we better include irregular also, which comes up more often than you might think when owning, let's say $2 - $3 a year. Unexpected costs. Expect the unexpected but if the place needs a new roof or something big like that, then you didn't do your homework before buying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3034fffe2070ee8dac760c96a48e0dd4", "text": "Another reason, and to me the main reason not to buy a house if you're in your early 20s (regardless of your income), is mobility. If you rent, you can move pretty much whenever you want after the first year of your rental lease is up, even before then in some cases. If your fiancee finishes school and gets a great job offer in another city or state, you can move there pretty quickly. When you own a house, that is much harder to do. Your having two kids makes it harder in either case, but at this point in your lives you really don't know where your future will take you, geographically speaking, and renting gives you the option of moving easily if you have to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfe64bcc2247e9dad272b964b2a148b8", "text": "\"First, let me mention that the reasons mentioned this far for renting are excellent ones. But, I disagree. Second, I would like to mention that I'm just a regular Joe, not an accountant, or a realtor. That said, I was in a similar situation not that long ago. I ended up renting, but I wish I hadn't. You should check out the \"\"offers\"\" in your area. You seem like you're willing to compromise on a more standard, or older home. If that is the case and you are willing to \"\"settle\"\" for an older town-home, or something similar, it might be in your best interest to do so. In my area for instance, the urban areas are becoming a bit crowded. This is good news for the people who already own homes in those urban areas, but bad news for people who are looking to rent an apartment (which tend to be located in urban areas) or buy a house in these urban areas. The reason I say that is simple; there is only one thing there will never be more of: land. If people are moving into these areas, and there is limited room to build structures, the demand is going up while the supply is unable to keep up. This means an increase in prices. BUT, this can also be used to your advantage. As the demand for those urban areas goes up, the rural areas around the urban areas are likely to be subsidized. For instance, near me, if you're willing to be 20 minutes from the nearest Walmart and you have a 550+ credit score and a stable income, you're able to acquire a government subsidized loan with 0% down. (I would recommend dropping at least SOMETHING, however, if possible.) Apartments of the size your family is going to require are going to be expensive. People who own apartment buildings are looking to make the most money per square foot. This means most apartment complexes are going to be filled with 1-2 bedroom apartments, but have very few if any 3+ bedroom apartments. (Again, this is my general experience, but it may be different where you're living.) I suspect the apartment your family is going to need is going to end up being very expensive, especially if people are moving into your town. You might consider trying to get a lower-quality house as apposed to a rare and large apartment for a few pretty obvious reasons: Don't misunderstand me, though. A lot of people get infatuated with the idea of being a home owner, and end up getting into something they will never be able to maintain, and if that happens it's something that's going to follow you for the rest of your life. As for your student loans, if you NEED to and you qualify you can apply for hardship. This would mean that you don't have to pay anything, or pay a reduced rate for some arbitrary approved amount of time, or until some arbitrary circumstance is met. However, do not take this lightly. While doing this might not necessarily accrue interest (depending on whether or not your loans were subsidized or unsubsidized and a host of other factors it might actually halt interest) these loans will follow you even into bankruptcy. Meaning if you get your student loans postponed and end up losing the house anyway, you have to make a fresh start with a bankruptcy AND student loans on your back. Furthermore, you can't count your chickens before they hatch, and neither will the banks. A big part of qualifying for a loan is your proof of income. If you haven't had that steady job for 6 months to a year or more, you're going to have a tough time getting a loan. Suppose your wife-to-be DOES start making that income...it's still not going to make a difference to the banks until they can say that it's not just a month long fling. Last, after reading all this I want to tell you that I am BIAS. I happened to miss the opportunity I'm explaining to you now, and that affects what I think you should do in this situation. Weigh the options carefully and objectively. Talk to your fiance. Talk to your friends, parents, anyone who is close with you. Come to an educated decision, rather than the decision that might be more exciting, or the one you WISH you could take. Good luck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f322b9b5a08727925d15bfeaf3f74e1d", "text": "I think the consensus is that you can't afford a home now and need to build more of a down payment (20% is benchmark, you may also need to pay mortgage insurance if you are below that) and all considered, it takes up too much of your monthly budget. You didn't do anything wrong but as mentioned by Ben, you are missing some monthly and yearly costs with home ownership. I suggest visiting a bank or somewhere like coldwell banker to discuss accurate costs and regulations in your area. I know the feeling of considering paying more now for the very attractive thought of owning a home... in 30 years. After interest, you need to consider that you are paying almost double the initial principle so don't rush for something you can do a year or two down the line as a major commitment. One major point that isn't emphasized in the current answers. You have a large family: Two children, a dog, and a cat. I don't know the kid's ages but given you are in your early twenties and your estimated monthly costs, they are probably very young before the point they really put any stress financially but you need to budget them in exponentially. Some quick figures from experience. Closing costs including inspections, mortgage origination fee, lawyer fees, checking the history of the home for liens, etc, which will set you back minimum 5% depending on the type of purchase (short sales, foreclosures are more expensive because they take longer) Insurance (home and flood) will depend on your zoning but you can expect anywhere between $100-300 a month. For many zones it is mandatory. Also depending on if it's a coop ($800+), condo($500+) or a townhouse-type you will need to pay different levels of monthly maintenance for the groundskeeping as a cooperative fee. at an estimate of a 250K home, all your savings will not be able to cover your closing costs and all 250k will need to be part of your base mortgage. so your base monthly mortgage payment at around 4% will be $1,200 a month. it's too tight. If it was a friend, I would highly suggest against buying in this case to preserve financial flexibility and sanity at such a young age.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90957f9feffb976c60372bb12c704a74", "text": "\"MY recommendation is simple. RENT The fact that you have to ask the question is a clear sign that you have no business buying a home. That's not to say that it's a bad question to ask though. Far more important then rather it's finically wise for you to buy a home, is the more important question of \"\"are you emotionally ready for the responsibility and permanence\"\" of a home. At best, you are tying your self to the same number of rooms, same location, and same set of circumstances for the next 5-7 years. In that time it will be very unlikely that you will be able to sell the house for a profit, get your minor equity back, or even get a second loan for any reason. You mentioned getting married soon, that means the possibility of more children, divorce, and who knows what else. You are in an emotionally and financially turblunt time in your life. Now is not the right time to buy anything large. Instead rent, and focus on improving your credit rating. In 5 years time you will have a much better credit rating, get much better rates and fees, and have a much better handle on where you want to be with your home/family situation. Buying a house is not something you do on a weekend. For most people it's the culmination of years of work, searching, researching, and preparation. Often times people that buy before they are ready, will end up in foreclosure, and generally have a crappy next 15 years, as they try to work themselves out of the issue.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a58fc7dbe14f82ac3d2856a08f1a856f", "text": "\"Forget, for the moment, which will pay off most over the long term. Consider risk exposure. You've said that you (hypothetically) have \"\"little or no money\"\": that's the deal-breaker. From a risk-management perspective, your investment portfolio would be better off diversified than with 90% of your assets in a house. Consider also the nature of the risk which owning a house exposes you to: Housing prices are generally tied to the state of the economy. If the local economy crashes, not only could you lose your job, but you could lose a good part of the value of your house... and still owe a lot on your loan. (You also might not be able to move as easily if you found a new job somewhere else.) You should almost certainly rent until you're more financially stable and could afford to pay the new mortgage for a year (or more) if you suddenly lost your job. Then you can worry more about maximizing your investments' rate of return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "145e74fa3efcff20e658426555ae1a21", "text": "In most cases my preference would be to buy. However, if you intend to sell after just one year I would maybe lean towards renting. You haven't included buying and selling cost into your equation nor any property taxes, and as John Bensin suggests, maintenance costs. If you were looking to hold the property for at least 5 years, 10 years or more, then if the numbers stood up, I would defiantly go with the buy option. You can rent it out after you move out and if the rent is higher than your total expenses in holding the property, you could rely on some extra passive income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1cbaf548cfac2d95afa711c88f816b6", "text": "I think we would be good with paying around $1200 monthly mortgage fees (with all other property fees included like tax etc.) You probably can't get a $250k house for $1,200 a month including taxes and insurance. Even at a 4% rate and 20% down, your mortgage payment alone will be $954, and with taxes and insurance on top of that you're going to be over $1,200. You might get a lower rate but even a drop to 3% only lowers the payment $90/month. Getting a cheaper house (which also reduces taxes and insurance) is the best option financially. What to do with the $15k that I have? If you didn't have a mortgage I'd say to keep 3-6 months of living expenses in an emergency fund, so I wouldn't deplete that just to get a mortgage. You're either going to be Since 1) the mortgage payment would be tight and 2) you aren't able to save for a down payment, my recommendation is for you to rent until you can make a 20% down payment and have monthly payment that is 25% of your take-home pay or less. Which means either your income goes up (which you indicate is a possibility) or you look for less house. Ideally that would be on a 15-year note, since you build equity (and reduce interest) much more quickly than a 3-year note, but you can get the same effect by making extra principal payments. Also, very few people stay in their house for 30 years - 5 years is generally considered the cutoff point between renting and buying. Since you're looking at a 10-year horizon it makes sense to buy a house once you can afford it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "749960a13c58456820dd69d8e93bd7c4", "text": "\"Whether or not you choose to buy is a complicated question. I will answer as \"\"what you should consider/think about\"\" as I don't think \"\"What should I do\"\" is on topic. First off, renting tends to look expensive compared to mortgages until you factor in the other costs that are included in your rent. Property taxes. These are a few grand a year even in the worst areas, and tend to be more. Find out what the taxes are ahead of time. Even though you can often deduct them (and your interest), you're giving up your standard deduction to do so - and with the low interest regime currently, unless your taxes are high you may not end up being better off deducting them. Home insurance. This depends on home and area, but is at least hundreds of dollars per year, and could easily run a thousand. So another hundred a month on your bill (and it's more than renter's insurance by quite a lot). Upkeep costs for the property. You've got a lot of up-front costs (buy a lawnmower, etc. types of things) plus a lot of ongoing costs (general repair, plumbing breaks, electrical breaks, whatnot). Sales commission, as Scott notes in comments. When you sell, you're paying about 6% commission; so you won't be above water, if housing prices stay flat, until you've paid off 6% of your loan value (plus closing costs, another couple of percent). You hit the 90% point on a 15 year about year 2, but on a 30 year you don't hit it until about year 5, so you might not be above water when you want to sell. Risk of decrease in value. Whenever you buy property, you take on the risk of losing value as well as the potential of gaining value. Don't assume that because prices are going up they will continue to; remember that a lot of investors are well aware of possible profits from rising prices and will be buying (and driving prices up) themselves. 2008 was a shock to a lot of people, even in areas where it seemed like prices should've still gone up; you never know what's going to happen. If you buy a house for 20% or so down, you have a bit of a safety net (if it drops 10-20% in value, you're still above water, though you do of course lose money), while if you buy it for 0% down and it drops 20% in value, you won't be able to sell (at all) for years. All that together means you should really take a hard look at the costs and benefits, make a realistic calculation including all actual costs, and then make a decision. I would not buy simply because it seems like a good idea to not pay rent. If you're unable to make any down payment, then you're also unable to deal with the risks in home ownership - not just decrease in value, but when your pipe bursts and ruins your basement, or when the roof needs a replacement because a tree falls on it. Yes, home insurance helps, but not always, and the deductible will still get you. Just to have some numbers: For my area, we pay about $8000 a year in property taxes on a $280k house ($200k mortgage), $1k a year in home insurance, so our escrow payment is about $750 a month. A 15 year for $200k is about $1400 a month, so $2200 or so total cost. We do live in a high property tax area, so someone in lower tax regimes would pay less - say 1800-1900 - but not that cheap. A 30 year would save you 500 or so a month, but you're still not all that much lower than rent.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dca1a33a7f94d8ef59daa6de936c28c3", "text": "\"If it was me, I would sell the house and use the proceeds to work on/pay off the second. You don't speak to your income, but it must be pretty darn healthy to convince someone to lend you ~$809K on two homes. Given this situation, I am not sure what income I would have to have to feel comfortable. I am thinking around 500K/year would start to make me feel okay, but I would probably want it higher than that. think I can rent out the 1st house for $1500, and after property management fees, take home about $435 per month. That is not including any additional taxes on that income, or deductions based on repair work, etc. So this is why. Given that your income is probably pretty high, would something less than $435 really move your net worth needle? No. It is worth the reduction in risk to give up that amount of \"\"passive\"\" income. Keeping the home opens you up to all kinds of risk. Your $435 per month could easily evaporate into something negative given taxes, likely rise in insurance rates and repairs. You have a great shovel to build wealth there is no reason to assume this kind of exposure. You will become wealthy if you invest and work to reduce your debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc952689a665f740665146ab357152c9", "text": "Advantages of buying: With every mortgage payment you build equity, while with rent, once you sign the check the money is gone. Eventually you will own the house and can live there for free. You can redecorate or remodel to your own liking, rather than being stuck with what the landlord decides is attractive, cost-effective, etc. Here in the U.S. there are tax breaks for homeowners. I'm not sure if that's true in U.K. Advantages of renting: If you decide to move, you may be stuck paying out a lease, but the financial penalty is small. With a house, you may find it difficult to sell. You may be stuck accepting a big loss or having to pay a mortgage on the empty house while you are also paying for your new place. When there are maintenance issues, you call the landlord and it's up to him to fix it. You don't have to come up with the money to pay for repairs. You usually have less maintenance work to do: with a house you have to mow the lawn, clear snow from the driveway, etc. With a rental, usually the landlord does that for you. (Not always, depends on type of rental, but.) You can often buy a house for less than it would cost to rent an equivalent property, but this can be misleading. When you buy, you have to pay property taxes and pay for maintenance; when you rent, these things are included in the rent. How expensive a house you can afford to buy is not a question that can be answered objectively. Banks have formulas that limit how much they will loan you, but in my experience that's always been a rather high upper bound, much more than I would actually be comfortable borrowing. The biggest issue really is, How important is it to you to have a nice house? If your life-long dream is to have a big, luxurious, expensive house, then maybe it's worth it to you to pour every spare penny you have into the mortgage. Other people might prefer to spend less on their house so that they have spare cash for a nice car, concert tickets, video games, cocaine, whatever. Bear in mind that if you get a mortgage that you can just barely afford, what do you do if something goes wrong and you can't afford it any more? What if you lose your job and have to take a lower-paying job? What if some disaster strikes and you have some other huge expense? Etc. On the flip side, the burden of a mortgage usually goes down over time. Most people find that their incomes go up over time, between inflation and growing experience. But the amount of a mortgage is fixed, or if it varies it varies with interest rates, probably bouncing up and down rather than going steadily up like inflation. So it's likely -- not at all certain, but likely -- that if you can just barely afford the payment now, that in 5 or 10 years it won't be as big a burden.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a66da7a6d68a0dceacd379e7774fb33", "text": "It's hard to financially justify buying a house just for one person to live in. You end up being 'over-housed' (and paying for it). Would you rent a whole house for yourself? A condo might be an option - but TO ME the maintenance fees are hard to take (and they are notorious for increasing dramatically as the building ages). You could consider buying a house that includes 1 or 2 rental units, or sharing with a friend. You do run the risk of having bad tenants though, and you have additional maintance to deal with. Having a rental unit in my modest house has worked out very well for me (living alone), and I have been VERY fortunate with tenants.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cdc0588d6d9eead92d49ddb549ec3d1", "text": "\"I would strongly consider renting; as homes are often viewed by people as \"\"investments\"\" but in reality they are costs, just like renting. The time-frame for return is so long, the interest rate structure in terms of your mortgage payments; if you buy, you must be prepared to and willing to stay at minimum 7-10 years; because anything can happen. Hot markets turn cold. Or stale, and just the closing costs will cause it be less advantageous to renting. Before buying a property, ask yourself does it meet these 5 criteria: IDEAL I - Income; the property will provide positive cash flow through renters. D - Depreciation; tax savings. E - Equity; building equity in the property- the best way is through interest only loans. There is NO reason to pay any principle on any property purchase. You do 5 year interest only loans; keep your payments low; and build equity over time as the property price rises. Look how much \"\"principle\"\" you actually pay down over the first 7 years on a 30 year mortgage. Virtually Nil. A - Appreciation - The property will over time go up in value. Period. There is no need to pay any principle. Your Equity will come from this... time. L - Leverage; As the property becomes more valuable; you will have equity stake, enabling you to get higher credit lines, lines of equity credit, to purchase more properties that are IDEA. When you are RICH, MARRIED, and getting ready for a FAMILY, then buy your home and build it. Until then, rent, it will keep your options open. It will keep your costs low. It will protect you from market downturns as leases are typically only 1 year at most. You will have freedom. You will not have to deal with repairs. A new Water Heater, AC unit, the list goes on and on. Focus on making money, and when you want to buy your first house. Buy a duplex; rent it out to two tenants, and make sure it's IDEAL.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8235e95dbdf4a3ee49fa95b34de43948", "text": "The main point to consider is that your payments toward your own home replace your rent. Any house or apartment you buy will have changes in value; the value is generally going slowly up, but there is a lot of noise, and you may be in a low phase at any time, and for a long time. So seeing it as an investment is not any better than buying share or funds, and it has a much worse liquidity (= you cannot as easily make it to cash when you want to), and not in parts either. However, if you buy for example a one-room apartment for 80000 with a 2% mortgage, and pay 2% interest = 1600 plus 1% principal = 800, for a total of 2400 per year = 200 per month, you are paying less than your current rent, plus you own it after 30 years. Even if it would be worth nothing after 30 years, you made a lot of money by paying half only every month, and it probably is not worthless. You need to be careful not to compare apples with oranges - if you buy a house for 200000 instead, your payments would be higher than your rent was, but you would be living in your house, not in a room. For most people, that is worth a lot. You need to put your own value to that; if you don't care to have a lot more space and freedom, the extra value is zero; if you like it, put a price to it. With current interest rates, it is probably a good idea for most people to buy a house that they can easily afford instead of paying rent. The usual rules should be considered - don't overstretch yourself, leave some security, etc. Generally, it is rather difficult to buy an affordable house instead of renting today and not saving a lot of money in the process, so I would say go for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "812decada0ce722f70af249736022a63", "text": "If it was me, I would consider selling both properties. Unless of course your renters from the first house are very, very good; and you have a good handy man in the area. Managing real estate from a distance is tricky, and $400 per month is not a lot of wiggle room. You would be taking on a lot of risk with only 40K in the bank, a 200K salary, three mortgages (one likely a jumbo) and a student loan. Yea, if it was me I would sell both.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4868ceb88a6bd253ef1d6e26028246ad", "text": "I'm confused why you think you need a $450k house. That seems extremely high in today's market except perhaps in certain major urban locations. If you're going to live in suburbia or a smaller town/city, you should be able to find a nice 3br house for well under $300k. Before you rule out buying a house, I'd spend some time researching the real estate listings in your area, foreclosures, properties owned by bankruptcy court, etc. - you might be surprised to find a great home for as low as $150-200k. Of course if you live in a place where what I'm saying is completely off-base, please disregard my answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97c89db94995877da12c615f5249ea48", "text": "The New York Times has a useful rent-vs-buy calculator. Based on your numbers, it suggests buying makes sense if you stay in the house for 5 years or more. This is just based on default values for various other parameters, though, like mortgage interest rate, rent increase rate, etc. You could try playing around with the numbers. Also as other answerers said, maintenance costs, closing costs, etc., should be factored in. If renting it out is a possibility even if you move out, it could be a better deal. One thing to think about renting-wise is, if you move out, where are you likely to move to? If you move far away, it could be impractical to manage the property as a rental. You could hire someone else to do that, but that would reduce your income from the rent. On the other hand, if you stay in LA, it could be feasible to manage the property yourself. Another key factor is, what rent would you be able to charge for this house? If you can make enough in rent to cover the mortgage payment, you may be in good shape; but due to overpriced real estate markets, sometimes you won't be able to do that, which would mean renting it might not be cost-effective.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "add0a2e26607e3e2f5a0795ea12c2485", "text": "I also prefer to crunch the numbers myself. Here are some resources:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bca2ab00f446483cdaaa60415bd5f2f", "text": "Dark navy or medium gray suit. Black is for funeral or formal evening (tuxedo) only. Regardless of suit price, budget $75-$100 for tailoring. You need to have the waist of the coat adjusted, sleeves proper length and pants hemmed for it to all fit correctly. If you're in good shape I'd suggest Suit Supply instead of Brooks Bros - with the former catering to a more modern and generally younger clientele, still with excellent quality (comparably). Jos A Bank if you're really on a budget but do a little research on suit fit, button stance, lapel width, and pants break and taper before you go in because they'll sell you garbage if you don't know what you're talking about. /r/malefashionadvice has a good sidebar and wiki if you want more info.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bc465db2671db22d83f5021d0872b262	Cheapest way to wire or withdraw money from US account while living in Europe	[ { "docid": "3f556ec1a4b3445c80dd443fbfc037af", "text": "I prefer to use a Foreign Exchange transfer service. You will get a good exchange rate (better than from Paypal or from your bank) and it is possible to set it up with no transfer fees on both ends. You can use an ACH transfer from your US bank account to the FX's bank account and then a SEPA transfer in Europe to get the funds into your bank account. Transfers can also go in the opposite direction (Europe to USA). I've used XE's service (www.xe.com) and US Forex's service (www.usforex.com). Transferwise (www.transferwise.com) is another popular service. US Forex's service calls you to confirm each transfer. They also charge a $5 fee on transfers under $1000. XE's service is more convenient: they do not charge fees for small transfers and do not call you to confirm the tramsfer. However, they will not let you set up a free ACH transfer from US bank accounts if you set up your XE account outside the US. In both cases, the transfer takes a few business days to complete. EDIT: In my recent (Summer 2015) experience, US Forex has offered slightly better rates than XE. I've also checked out Transferwise, and for transfers from the US it seems to be a bit of a gimmick with a fee added late in the process. For reference, I just got quotes from the three sites for converting 5000 USD to EUR:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49b52fa20a3fd890838958f5ba4230e0", "text": "I use xoom.com to transfer money to India. I've been using them for over 2 years now, they are the fastest and the cheapest for me (the funds are usually available the same day). They seem to have added a lot of European countries to their list. Definitely worth a shot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1dd51cb9095867ae022838ec872694a5", "text": "There is a number of cheaper online options that you could use. TranferWise was already mentioned here. Other options i know are Paysera or TransferGo. They state that international transfers are processed on the next day and they are substantially cheaper than those of banks. Currency exchange rate is usually not bad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73263b07ceab7ff831dd179b39735b74", "text": "Atm machine and my Credit Union account. Low fees (often zero, if the machine is on any of the same networks) and decent exchange rate, and no need to carry cash or traveler's checks to be exchanged. Alternatively, pay by credit card, though there is a foreign transaction fee on that.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b98dd815ef852c5d1e52b86ec13e8e41", "text": "Barclays Bank, RBS, and Deutsche Bank have an agreement as part of the Global ATM Alliance that allows you to make withdrawals at Deutsche Bank ATMs at no charge. The usefulness of this arrangement to you depends on how you use your money and would entail opening an account at Barclays or Royal Bank of Scotland. Edit: David, it looks like you will need some kind of residency to open a Barclays account, but you may be able to qualify with the proper supporting documentation. See this website: UK banking services and UK bank accounts, from Barclays Wealth International", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ee43db088ef43126ad6e5f9efd1aec9", "text": "\"I think you can do it as long as those money don't come from illegal activities (money laundering, etc). The only taxes you should pay are on the interest generated by those money while sitting in the UK bank account. Since I suppose you already paid taxes on those money in Greece while you were earning those money. About being audited, in my own experience banks don't ask you much where your money are coming from when you bring money to them, they are very willing to help, and happy. (It's a differnte story when you ask to borrow money). When I opened a bank account in US I did not even have an SSN, but they didn't care much they just took my passport and used the passport number for registering the account. Obviously on the interest generated by the money in the US bank account I had to pay taxes, but it was easy because I simply let the IRS via the bank to withdarw the 27% on the interest generated (not on the capital deposited). I didn't put a huge amount of money there I had to live there for 1 year or some more. Maybe if i deposited a huge amount of money someone would have come to ask me how did I make all those money, but those money were legally generated by me working in Italy before so I didn't have anything to be afraid about. BTW: in Italy I was thinking to move money to a German bank in Germany. The risk of default is a nightmare, something of completly new now in UE compared to the past where each state had its own currency. According to Muro history says that in case of default it happened that some government prevented people from withdrawing money form bank accounts: \"\"Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis. See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression. The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value.\"\" but in case Greece prevents people from withdrwaing money, those money are still in EURO, so i'm wondering what would be the effect. I mean would it be fair that a Greek guy can not withdraw is EURO money whilest an Italian guy can withdraw the same currency money in Italy?!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc09b6dfa8e6977d71d0fb8eb8d69b13", "text": "Cheaper and faster are usually mutually exclusive. If you want faster, nothing is faster than cash. I would recommend using an ATM to withdraw cash from your USD account as Florints and then use as appropriate. If you want cheaper, then the cheapest currency conversion commonly available is foreign exchange / transfer services like OFX / XE Trade / Transferwise. Turn around time on these can be as little as a business day or two but more commonly takes a few business days, but they typically offer the best currency exchange rates at the lowest cost. If you must make regular payments to 3rd parties, you can set these services up to send the converted currency to a 3rd party rather than back to your own account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57db2cb8bd3687c280c486d8e901954d", "text": "Unfortunately I do not have much experience with European banks. However, I do know of ways to earn interest on bank accounts. CDs (Certificates of Deposit) are a good way to earn interest. Its basically a savings account that you cannot touch for a fixed rate of time. You can set it from an average of 6 months to 12 months. You can pull the money out early if there is an emergency as well. I would also look into different types of bank accounts. If you go with an account other than a free one, the interest rate will be higher and as long as you have the minimum amount required you should not be charged. Hope I was able to help!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef274fde8ff9993d7e6a2b343d34d339", "text": "\"You can find lots of answers to this question by googling. I found at least five pages about this in 30 seconds. Most of these pages seem to say that if you must convert cash, converting it in the destination country is probably better, because you are essentially buying a product (in this case, dollars), and it will cheaper where the supply is greater. There are more dollars in the USA than there are in Portugal, so you may be able to get them cheaper there. (Some of those pages mention caveats if you're trying to exchange some little-known currency, which people might not accept, but this isn't an issue if you're converting euros.) Some of those pages specifically recommend against airport currency exchanges; since they have a \"\"captive audience\"\" of people who want to convert money right away, they face less competition and may offer worse rates. Of course, the downside of doing the exchange in the USA is that you'll be less familiar with where to do it. I did find some people saying that, for this reason, it's better to do it in your own country where you can shop around at leisure to find the best rate. That said, if you take your time shopping around, shifts in the underlying exchange rate in the interim could erase any savings you find. It's worth noting, though, that the main message from all these pages is the same: don't exchange cash at all if you can possibly avoid it. Use a credit card or ATM card to do the exchange. The exchange rate is usually better, and you also avoid the risks associated with carrying cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c98cf6419843e739fcdc244c80134fbc", "text": "A 2.5% fee is standard, and you're not likely to avoid a transaction fee when withdrawing cash from an ATM. You'd do better to get foreign currency before leaving the US, or to use a credit card abroad. Capital One has a credit card with no fee on foreign-currency purchases, for example. Another option is to open a bank account in the foreign currency, if you go to a particular country often enough to make it worthwhile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d14c708264ea9f9d8eb46a76dd39c6e1", "text": "It can be done, but I believe it would be impractical for most people - i.e., it would likely be cheaper to fly to Europe from other side of the world to handle it in person if you can. It also depends on where you live. You should take a look if there are any branches or subsidiaries of foreign banks in your country - the large multinational banks most likely can open you an account in their sister-bank in another country for, say, a couple hundred euro in fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "017a7de71720f3ddd4ec7b363fcd2bec", "text": "Transfer it as International wire, there will be some fees. Check with your Bank in Turkey. Turkey has not yet joined SEPA, else this would have been a low cost alternative.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d494f736c2fe7c90d149b3ec3bbbcc0f", "text": "There are several ways to minimize the international wire transfer fees: Transfer less frequently and larger amounts. The fees are usually flat, so transferring larger amounts lowers the fee percentage. 3% is a lot. In big banks, receiving is usually ~$15. If you transfer $1000 at a time, its 1.5%, if you transfer $10000 - it's much less, accordingly. If you have the time - have them send you checks (in US dollars) instead of wire transferring. It will be on hold for some time (up to a couple of weeks maybe), but will be totally free for you. I know that many banks have either free send and/or receive. I know that ETrade provides this service for free. My credit union provides if for free based on the relationship level, I have a mortgage with them now, so I don't pay any fees at all, including for wire transfer. Consider other options, like Western Union. Those may cost more for the sender (not necessarily though), but will be free for the receiver. You can get the money in cash, or checks, which you can just deposit on your regular bank account. For smaller amounts, it should be much cheaper than wire transfer, for example - sending $500 to India costs $10, while wire transfer is $30.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f39e20a191739cd2de55aa8d450d7437", "text": "\"If you still have affairs in Spain or you plan to visit regularly, I would advise against closing your account there unless it is expensive. I still have a bank account in the Netherlands and it simplifies at lot of things to have it. I would recommend you take enough money to get you going in the US with you but leave the rest in your bank account in Spain. Once you have opened a bank account in the US, use a foreign exchange transfer service like ofx, XE trade or Transferwise to transfer the money to yourself. In general, foreign exchange transfer services are the most cost effective way to transfer money internationally (much better than your own bank, Pay Pal, Western Union, wire transfers, etc). They are \"\"fast\"\" in that it can take less than a week to transfer money, but other methods are faster if time is of the essence.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3da6581a70d5dbae8ecdb677ea0df69d", "text": "\"The Option 2 in your answer is how most of the money is moved cross border. It is called International Transfer, most of it carried out using the SWIFT network. This is expensive, at a minimum it costs in the range of USD 30 to USD 50. This becomes a expensive mechanism to transfer small sums of money that individuals are typically looking at. Over a period of years, the low value payments by individuals between certain pair of countries is quite high, example US-India, US-China, Middle-East-India, US-Mexico etc ... With the intention to reduce cost, Banks have built a different work-flow, this is the Option 1. This essentially works on getting money from multiple individuals in EUR. The aggregated sum is converted into INR, then transferred to partner Bank in India via Single SWIFT. Alongside the partner bank is also sent a file of instructions having the credit account. The Partner Bank in India will use the local clearing network [these days NEFT] to credit the funds to the Indian account. Option 3: Other methods include you writing a check in EUR and sending it over to a friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically very nominal costs. Typically one month of timelines. Option 4: Another method would be to visit an Indian Bank and ask them to issue a \"\"Rupee Draft/Bankers Check\"\" payable in India. The charges for this would be higher than Option 3, less than Option 1. Mail this to friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically couple of days timelines for transfer to happen.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "394e7f9c315c8a45d52d4024cb97755e", "text": "Bitcoin can facilitate this, despite the risks associated with using bitcoin exchanges and the price volatility at any given time. The speed of bitcoin can limit your exposure to the bitcoin network to one hour. Cyprus has a more advanced infrastructure than most countries to support bitcoin transactions, with Neo & Bee opening as a regulated bank/financial entity in Cyprus just two months ago, and ATM/Vending Machines existing for that asset. Anyway, you acquire bitcoin from an individual locally (in exchange for cash) or an exchange that does not require the same level of reporting as a bank account in Cyprus or Russia. No matter how you acquire the bitcoin, you transfer it to the exchange, sell bitcoin on the exchange for your desired currency (USD, EURO, etc), you instruct the exchange to wire the EURO to your cyprus bank account using your cyprus account's SWIFT code. The end. Depending on the combination of countries involved, the exchange may still encounter similar withdrawal limitations until certain regulatory requirements are resolved. Also, I'm unsure of the attitude toward bitcoin related answers on this site, so I tried to add a disclaimer about bitcoin's risks at the top, but that doesn't make this answer incorrect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e7ade037d44f4b9595d38d7ea099389", "text": "The website http://currencyfair.com/ provides a service which gives you both a decent exchange rate (about 1% off from mid-market rate) and a moderately low fee for the transfer: 4 USD for outgoing ACH in the US, 10 USD for same-day US wire. For the reverse (sending money from the US to EU) the fees are: 3 EUR for an ACH, 8 EUR for a same-day EUR wire. It has been online for quite a while, so I assume its legit, but I'd do a transfer for a smaller sum first, to see if there are any problems, and then a second transfer for the whole sum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6f497d0d1f37a618b3d6ef7938703e3", "text": "Wire transfers are the best method. Costs can vary from $10 to $100 or more, depending on the banks and countries involved. There's rarely any saving using the same bank, although HSBC may have reduced charges if you have Premier accounts in both countries (for a one-off transaction, it may not be worth the effort to open an account). However, that cost is insignificant compared to your possible losses on the currency exchange. Assuming your money is currently in Hong Kong Dollars (HKD), it will need to be converted to US Dollars (USD). One place where it could be converted is at your Hong Kong bank. You'll get their retail rate. Make sure you are aware of the rate they will use, and any fees, in advance. Expect to pay around 2-3% from the mid-market rate (the rate you see quoted online, which doesn't fluctuate much for HKD-USD as the currencies are linked). Another place where the currency could be converted is at your US bank. You really don't get any control over that if it arrives as HKD and is then automatically converted into your USD. The rate and fees could be quite poor, especially if it is a minor US bank that has to deal with anther bank for foreign currency. For amounts of this size, it's worthwhile using a specialist currency conversion company instead. Currency Fair in Ireland is one. It's a peer-to-peer exchange that is generally the best deal (at least for the currency pairs I use). You wire the money to them, do the exchange on their site at a rate that is much closer to 0.5% from the midrate, then the money is transferred out by wire for a few dollars. Adds a few days to the process, but will possibly save you close to US$1000. Another established option is Currency Online in New Zealand. There are probably also specialist currency exchange companies in Hong Kong. The basic rule is, don't let the banks exchange currencies at rates that suit them, use a third party that offers a better rate and lower fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b198461ba3b9f14c0cfd3e01b893a69", "text": "I don't believe they're right. For international wire transfers you'd need either IBAN or SWIFT codes. I don't think any US bank participates in the IBAN network (mostly Europe and the Far East), so SWIFT is they way to go with the US. Credit unions frequently don't know what and how to do with international transactions because they don't have them that often. Some don't even have SWIFT codes of their own (many, in fact) and use intermediaries to receive money.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3dc0600ac80bafff28dfab3459f8106c	Is the amount taxable if my grandfather sells agricultural land	[ { "docid": "54a7995b903e408a0c8d4f23e74f9eec", "text": "As your is a very specific case, please get an advice of CA. It should not cost you much and make it easier. The sale of agriculture land is taxable in certain conditions and exempt from tax in other cases. Sale of agricultural land is subject to capital gains tax. But there are certain exemptions under Section 54B, subject to conditions, which are as follows: If deemed taxable, you can avail indexation, ie the price at which you grandfather got [the date when he inherited it as per indexation] and pay 10% on the difference. If the price is not known, you can take the govt prescribed rate. As there is a large deposit in your fathers account, there can be tax queries and need to be answered. Technically there is no tax liable even if your grandfather gifts the money to your father. More details at http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130401/jsp/business/story_16733007.jsp and http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/publications/4_compute_your_capital_gains/chapter2.asp", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9c90435fdf109de1e804b3d46b77e233", "text": "A simple rule of tax is , It doesn't matter where u live or your residence when it comes to income accruing in India . As far as i know , You will need to find out the purchase prices of the inherited land and calculate the index value . Then pay tax on the capital profit (Not sure , I guess its 20%) Example : Original value is 100,000 and the index value is 1,500,000 so the profit will be 650,000 . You pay 20% of the 650k only . For paying minimum tax (Tax saving) There are few sections which gives exemption like purchase some bonds or purchase a house . Its best if you ask a chartered accountant , For this simple case he shouldn't charge much. He should have updated knowledge of the situation and guide you better .", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13cb98f5b22e7342d63e29535579c04b", "text": "If you are the beneficiary of an annuity, you might receive a single-sum distribution when the annuity owner dies. The amount of this death benefit might be the current cash value of the annuity or some other amount based upon contract riders that the owner purchased. The tax on death benefits depends on a number of factors. Death benefits are taxed as normal income. Unlike other investments, the named beneficiary of a non-qualified annuity does not get a step-up in tax basis to the date of death. However, that doesn't mean the beneficiary will have to pay taxes on the full amount. Because the purchaser of the annuity made the investment with after-tax dollars, only the amount attributable to investment income is taxed, but it will be taxed as ordinary income and not enjoy any special capital gains treatment. When there is a death benefit that exceeds the value of the account, that additional amount is also taxed as ordinary income. Taxes on annuities depend on several circumstances: For more information on distribution of inherited annuities and taxes - go to Annuities HQ-- http://www.annuitieshq.com/articles/distribution-options-inherited-annuity/ they go into details that could help you even more. One thing that Annuities HQ points out is if you take the lump sum payout, you may be pushed into a higher tax bracket. Along with doing research I would also contact a financial advisor!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9fd3b5f25bb9d6af63423130795181e", "text": "\"Do I have to explain the source of all income on my taxes? \"\"Yes, you do\"\", say the ghosts of Ermenegildo and Mary Cesarini. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/general/what-to-know-about-taxes-on-found-property/L9BfdKz7N The Cesarinis argued to the IRS that the money wasn’t income, and so it should not be taxed as such. The IRS wasn’t swayed by the couple’s argument. The case went to federal court, and the IRS won. “Found” property and money has been considered taxable income ever since. The IRS plainly states that taxpayers must report “all income from any source,\"\" even income earned in another country, unless it is explicitly exempt under the U.S. Tax Code. This covers a wide range of miscellaneous income, including gambling winnings. According to the Cesarini decision, money you find isn’t explicitly exempt. The tax impact won’t be significant if you find an item of property with a fair market value of only $500 and are in the 25% tax bracket. You’ll owe the IRS $125 ($500 x .25 = $125). However, if you are a finder and keeper of $10,000, your tax burden will be $2,500 ($10,000 x .25 = $2,500).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cb4e274c228cb0a2282d036447a0de5", "text": "\"Books would be considered Personal-Use Property according to Canada's income tax laws. The most detailed IT I was able to find is IT-332R, which says: GAINS AND LOSSES 3. A gain on the disposition of personal-use property is normally a capital gain within the meaning of paragraph 39(1)(a). Where the property is a principal residence, the gain > is computed under paragraph 40(2)(b) or (c). 4. Under subparagraph 40(2)(g)(iii), a loss on a disposition of personal-use property, other than listed personal property, is deemed to be nil. [...] This part of the bulletin indicates that a gain might be considered a capital gain - not income. However, you don't get to book a loss as a capital loss. This is the first hint that your book sale - which is actually an exempt capital loss - shouldn't go on your tax return unless it's one of the \"\"listed\"\" items: LISTED PERSONAL PROPERTY 7. Listed personal property is defined in paragraph 54(e) to mean personal-use property that is all or any portion of, or any interest in or right to, any (a) print, etching, drawing, painting, sculpture, or other similar work of art, (b) jewellery, (c) rare folio, rare manuscript, or rare book, (d) stamp, or (e) coin. So unless you're selling rare books, the disposition (sale) of them is essentially exempt as income, regardless of whether you sold it at a profit or at a loss. If it is rare, then you might be able to consider it a capital loss, which doesn't help you much unless you had other capital gains, but you can carry over capital losses to future years. There's also a newer IT related to hobbies and \"\"collecting\"\" items, IT-334R2. This one says: 11. In order for any activity or pursuit to be regarded as a source of income, there must be a reasonable expectation of profit. Where such an expectation does not exist (as is the case with most hobbies), neither amounts received nor expenses incurred are included in the income computation for tax purposes and any excess of expenses over receipts is a personal or living expense, the deduction of which is denied by paragraph 18(1)(h). On the other hand, if the hobby or pastime results in receipts of revenue in excess of expenses, that fact is a strong indication that the hobby is a venture with an expectation of profit; if so, the net income may be taxable as income from a business. The current version of IT-504, Visual Artists and Writers, discusses the concept of \"\"a reasonable expectation of profit\"\" in greater detail. Where a hobby consists of collecting personal-use property or listed personal property, dispositions should be accounted for as described in the current version of IT-332, Personal-Use Property. (emphasis mine) In other words, if it's not the type of thing where you'd make a tax deduction when you bought it in the first place, then you clearly don't need to report it as income when you sell it. Just to be absolutely clear here: The fact that you are selling them at a loss is not actually what's important here. What's important is that, if the books aren't collectibles, then you would have had no expectation of profit. If you did have that expectation then you could have made a tax deduction when you first purchased them. So in this case, it is probably not necessary for you to report the income; however, for the benefit of other readers, in some cases you might need to report it under \"\"other income\"\" or book it as a capital gain/loss, depending on what those personal items are and whether or not you made a net profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a286e4563e4d15f6300f7e8ac67849fd", "text": "\"Yes, you're correct and yes they will. Note that it will be considered as \"\"sale\"\" with gains being taxable income to you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "735b89d65511a408a5232cc35faa6d59", "text": "There can be Federal estate tax as well as State estate tax due on an estate, but it is not of direct concern to you. Estate taxes are paid by the estate of the decedent, not by the beneficiaries, and so you do not owe any estate tax. As a matter of fact, most estates in the US do not pay Federal estate tax at all because only the amount that exceeds the Federal exemption ($5.5M) is taxable, and most estates are smaller. State estate taxes might be a different matter because while many states exempt exactly what the Federal Government does, others exempt different (usually smaller) amounts. But in any case, estate taxes are not of concern to you except insofar as what you inherit is reduced because the estate had to pay estate tax before distributing the inheritances. As JoeTaxpayer's answer says more succinctly, what you inherit is net of estate tax, if any. What you receive as an inheritance is not taxable income to you either. If you receive stock shares or other property, your basis is the value of the property when you inherit it. Thus, if you sell at a later time, you will have to pay taxes only on the increase in the value of the property from the time you inherit it. The increase in value from the time the decedent acquired the property till the date of death is not taxable income to you. Exceptions to all these favorable rules to you is the treatment of Traditional IRAs, 401ks, pension plans etc that you inherit that contain money on which the decedent never paid income tax. Distributions from such inherited accounts are (mostly) taxable income to you; any part of post-tax money such as nondeductible contributions to Traditional IRAs that is included in the distribution is tax-free. Annuities present another source of complications. For annuities within IRAs, even the IRS throws up its hands at explaining things to mere mortals who are foolhardy enough to delve into Pub 950, saying in effect, talk to your tax advisor. For other annuities, questions arise such as is this a tax-deferred annuity and whether it was purchased with pre-tax money or with post-tax money, etc. One thing that you should check out is whether it is beneficial to take a lump sum distribution or just collect the money as it is distributed in monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or annual payments. Annuities in particular have heavy surrender charges if they are terminated early and the money taken as a lump sum instead of over time as the insurance company issuing the annuity had planned on happening. So, taking a lump sum would mean more income tax immediately due not just on the lump sum but because the increase in AGI might reduce deductions for medical expenses as well as reduce the overall amount of itemized deductions that can be claimed, increase taxability of social security benefits, etc. You say that you have these angles sussed out, and so I will merely re-iterate Beware the surrender charges.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "460ebdb56d37f72732e2748e258714c7", "text": "1) You parents will have to pay tax on the gain as it wasn't their primary home. You don’t pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) your home if all of the following apply: As I look at it, it is your parents are the ones who own the property and they will have to pay on £60000. But as you say you pay part of the mortgage, I would go to a tax advisor/accountant to confirm if they will only pay on the £15000. I couldn't find any guidance on that matter on gov.uk 2) Inheritance tax will not be levied on it as it is below £325000, but tax will be levied on £325000, less £3000 annual gift allowance. Two articles for further information - GOV.UK's Tax when you sell your home Money.co.UK's Gifting money to your children: FAQs", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93b6457e8a48c4363e86f317dbc0934e", "text": "From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if— (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9838f030c43ae7ef9cb5567a6f0bf48", "text": "My understanding is that when you die, the stocks are sold and then the money is given to the beneficiary or the stock is repurchased in the beneficiaries name. This is wrong, and the conclusion you draw from michael's otherwise correct answer follows your false assumption. You seem to understand the Estate Tax federal threshold. Jersey would have its own, and I have no idea how it works there. If the decedent happened to trade in the tax year prior to passing, normal tax rules apply. Now, if the executor chooses to sell off and liquidate the estate to cash, there's no further taxable gain, a $5M portfolio can have millions in long term gain, but the step up basis pretty much negates all of it. If that's the case, the beneficiaries aren't likely to repurchase those shares, in fact, they might not even know what the list of stocks was, unless they sifted through the asset list. But, that sale was unnecessary, assets can be divvied up and distributed in-kind, each beneficiary getting their fraction of the number of shares of each stock. And then your share of the $5M has a stepped up basis, meaning if you sell that day, your gains are near zero. You might owe a few dollars for whatever the share move in the time passing between the step up date and date you sell. I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding. By the way, the IRS is just an intermediary. It's congress that writes the laws, including the tangled web of tax code. The IRS is the moral equivalent of a great customer service team working for a company we don't care for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d2dcffb473ab170f96dc355c71fecf5", "text": "\"Look into: \"\"State forestry tax deferment plan providing a considerable reduction in property taxes.\"\" \"\"My property was in a “greenway”, which was supposedly county sponsored; but was really funded by the federal government and gave the property had a tax reduction.\"\" There are also woodlot exemptions, iirc. Depending on the state, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a4539c3023dfcea2edaaec10b1f429c", "text": "Cost basis is irrelevant because the entire distribution is taxed as ordinary income even if the custodian distributes stock or mutual fund shares to you. Such distributions save you the brokerage fees that you would incur had you taken a cash distribution and promptly bought the shares outside the retirement account for yourself but they have no effect on the tax treatment of the distribution: the market value of the shares distributed to you is taxed as ordinary income, and your basis in the newly acquired shares outside the retirement account is the market value of the shares, all prices being as of the date of the distribution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cebf899ff5e831a6d09b0757dbc3ccc", "text": "The rental income is indeed taxable income, but you reduce the taxable portion of it by deducting expenses (including mortgage interest, maintenance, insurance, HOA, real estate tax, and of course depreciation). Due to the depreciation, you may end up breaking even, or having very little taxable income. Note that when you sell the property, your basis is reduced by the depreciation you were allowed to deduct (even if you haven't deducted it for whatever reason), and also the personal residence exclusion might no longer be applicable - i.e.: you'll have to pay capital gains tax. You will not be able to deduct a loss though if you sell now, so it may be better to depreciate it as a rental, rather then sell at a loss that won't affect your taxes. Also, consider the fact that the basis for the depreciation is not the basis you currently have in the property (because you're under water). You have to remember that when calculating the taxes. This is not a tax advice, and you should seek a professional help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8e90732e325599af6175216e695a35f", "text": "It would be better for you to sell yourself and pay capital gains tax than to transfer to your parents and pay the gift tax. Also, sham transfer (you transfer to your mother only so that she could sell and transfer back to you without you paying taxes) will be probably categorized as tax evasion, which is a criminal offense that could lead to your deportation. What the US should or should not claim you can take to your congressman, but the fact is that the US does claim tax on capital gains even if you bought the asset before becoming US tax resident, and that's the current law.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0d3389d1c8d60b52ffff6b5f878ec11", "text": "\"Of course. The rationale is exactly the same as always: profit is taxed. The fact that you use intermediate barter to make that profit is irrelevant. To clarify, as it seems that you think it makes a difference that no money \"\"changed hands\"\". Consider this situation: So far your cost is $10000. How will the tax authority address this? They will look at the fair market value of the barter. You got gold worth of $20000. So from their perspective, you got $20000, and immediately exchanged it into gold. What does it mean for you? That you're taxed on the $10000 gain you made on your product X (the $20000 worth of barter that you received minus the $10000 worth of work/material/expenses that you spend on producing the merchandise), and that you have $20000 basis in the gold that you now own. If in a year, when you plan to sell the gold, its price drops - you can deduct investment losses. If its price goes up - you'll have investment gain. But for the gain you're making on your product X you will pay taxes now, because that's when you realized it - sold the merchandize and received in return something else of a value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "baebd309ec2e588da4ec6750b375502a", "text": "If the gift was stock that they have owned for years there can be one hitch: The basis of the stock doesn't reset when it is gifted. For example if grandparents have owned stock that is currently worth $10,000 today, but they bought it decades ago when it only cost them $1,000; then if the new owner sells it today they will have a gain of $9,000. The clock to determine short term/long term also doesn't reset; which is good. The basis needs to be determined now so that the gain can be accurately calculated in the future. This information should be stored in a safe place. Gains for dividends are investment income and the rules regarding the kiddie tax need to be followed.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
710c573a1bf15fb7410bc5225c808e89	Apartment Security Deposit refunds in Maryland	[ { "docid": "cb4536ff81ae83fd90bb89bcd1aae70a", "text": "In Maryland, a landlord must hold your security deposit in an escrow account and pay you interest when returning the deposit. The interest is simple interest; it does not compound. The interest rate that they must pay has changed over the last 43 years. Before October 1, 2004, the rate was 4%. Until January 1, 2015, the rate was 3%. Currently, the rate is 1.5% OR the simple interest rate accrued at the daily U.S. Treasury yield curve rate for one year, as of the first business day of each year, whichever is greater. (This year, the rate is 1.5%.) Maryland's Department of Housing and Community Development has a Security Deposit Calculator for easy calculation of this interest; however, it only works for deposits since January 1, 2015. It is unclear to me whether the interest rate in effect is the one that was in place when the security deposit was made, or if the rate changes over the years. At most, if you get 4% interest every year, I would expect you to receive $429.76, which is $158 + ($158 * 4% * 43). The interest is accrued every 6 months, so you would not get any interest for the 3 months that you rented in your 44th year. (With the new law that took effect this year, interest is accrued monthly.) At least, if the interest rate changes with the new laws, I would expect you to receive $413.18, which is $158 + ($158 * 4% * 32.5) + ($158 * 3% * 10.25) + ($158 * 1.5% * 0.5). Some text on the Security Deposit Calculator suggests that the laws for Prince George's County are different than the rest of the state. If you are in that county, you'll need to check the local ordinances to see what security deposit policies apply.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e7c4de12c012960ae2f30380ae29cab3", "text": "\"I don't have a crystal ball but chances are your tenant is definitely lying. Rent was late and now the money intended to cover the rent; miraculously is lost in the mailbox. Anyhow, you were already nice to tolerate the late \"\"payment\"\". Keshlam's option 1.5 in the comments above is the ideal way to settle in which both parties have learned a lesson and are at a loss. Demand the rent payment but settle for half as a one time courtesy. If this continues or this tenant has shown shady predicaments such as this, you should look for legal means to evict this tenant. College students are very creative and who's to say this won't happen again? \"\"The neighbors dog took my wallet.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a40bb98efec6409b70151dd126776cff", "text": "I'm assuming this is the US. Is this illegal? Are we likely to be caught? What could happen if caught? If you sign an occupancy affidavit at closing that says you intend to move in within 60-days, with no intention of doing so, then you'll be committing fraud, specifically mortgage/occupancy fraud, a federal crime with potential for imprisonment and hefty fines. In general, moving in late is not something that's likely to be noticed, if the lender is getting their money then they probably don't care. Renting it out prior to moving in seems much riskier, especially if you live in a city/state that requires rental licensing, or are depending on rental income to carry the mortgage. No idea how frequently people are caught/punished for this type of fraud, but it hardly seems worth finding out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fabde7d45795614312a71467bc92b461", "text": "\"It is legal. They're probably going to give you a 1099-MISC, which is required of businesses for many cash payments over $600 in value to all sorts of counterparties. (Probably box 3 of 1099-MISC as is typical in \"\"cash for keys\"\" situations where one is paid to vacate early) A 1099-MISC is not necessarily pure income, but in this case, you do have money coming in. This money isn't a return of your security deposit or a gift. The payment could possibly be construed by you as a payment to make you whole, but the accounting for this would be on you. This is not a typical situation for IRS reporting. However, if you are uncomfortable with potentially explaining to the IRS how you implemented advice from strangers over the internet, the safest course is to report it all as income. Look at it this way: you did enter into a mutual contract, where you were paid consideration to release your leasehold interests in the property.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f77a562e806a188e7bd016805aab62b", "text": "Unfortunately, you still owe the collection agency the money. Once they bought your debt, they became the ones that you needed to pay. Nothing that you do or pay to the apartment complex has any bearing on their right to collect that debt. As far as the agency is concerned you gave the apartment complex a gift. As to whether you can get the complex to refund that payment, you will need to speak to a lawyer. And it may hinge on what obligation the complex had of reminding/informing you that your debt had been sold to a collection agency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6302253c06243087d1f4e543d757815", "text": "Ultimately, you are the one that is responsible for your tax filings and your payments (It's all linked to your SSN, after all). If this fee/interest is the result of a filing error, and you went through a preparing company which assumes liability for their own errors, then you should speak to them. They will likely correct this and pay the fees. On the other hand, if this is the result of not making quarterly payments, then you are responsible for it. (Source: Comptroller of Maryland Site) If you [...] do not have Maryland income taxes withheld by an employer, you can make quarterly estimated tax payments as part of a pay-as-you-go plan. If your employer does withhold Maryland taxes from your pay, you may still be required to make quarterly estimated income tax payments if you develop a tax liability that exceeds the amount withheld by your employer by more than $500. From this watered-down public-facing resource, it seems like you'll get hit with fees for not making quarterly payments if your tax liability exceeds $500 beyond what is withheld (currently: $0).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fab868581152d6464183e52963bacff7", "text": "\"To the best of my knowledge, in California there's no such thing as registering a place as a business. There's zoning (residential/commercial/mixed/etc), and there's \"\"a business registered at a place\"\". But there's no \"\"place registered as a business\"\". So you better clarify what it is that you think your landlord did. It may be that the place is used for short term rentals, in which case the landlord may have to have registered a business of short term rentals there, depending on the local municipal or county rules. Specifically regarding the deposit, however, there's a very clear treatment in the California law. The landlord must provide itemized receipt for the amounts out of the deposit that were used, and the prices should be reasonable and based on the actual charges by the actual vendors. If you didn't get such a receipt, or the amounts are bogus and unsubstantiated - you have protection under the CA law.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37fae8f27e78d0cf8f028bbb889a9884", "text": "The employer most likely has already sent that money that was withheld to the IRS. Therefore they cannot refund you any money. Instead you need to get the money back from the IRS. You do this by filing a tax return. Your W2C will show that taxes were withheld (I.e., that you paid taxes). The rest of the return will show that no taxes were due and therefore you are entitled to have your money refunded. If you have already filed for that tax you, you just need to file an amended return with the new data. That amendment will show that you are to be refunded the extra money. Then just wait several weeks for the payment from the IRS. As pointed out user102008, if it is Medicare and social security taxes that have been withheld in error, then you need to file a different set of forms with IRS. It would be nice if refunding FICA also occurred via the tax return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c5cc6a65fe0e84aeb7e427dd8dd776c", "text": "Cash should never have been placed in the mailbox in the first place; this is what checks are for. I would be a bit surprised if that constitutes your accepting payment, but I Am Not A Lawyer. You need local legal advice; this is the sort of thing where local rulings matter. Definitely report the missing money to the police, no matter what else you do. You do not have to give them an opinion on whether this was a theft or an attempted fraud; just give them the facts that the tenant says they left money in the box but you didn't find it there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e073c71ae7a33cf89cf9a3a58ca8da94", "text": "This is more of a legal question than a monetary one. You can try to negotiate with the debt owner as Pete B. suggests. Alternatively, you can ignore them and see what happens. They might sue you for the 400 plus costs, or maybe not. That is a pretty small amount for a lawyer to show up in a court of law. If you go to court, you can win by testifying that you returned the box and the charge is invalid. If you testify in court that you did not return the box, then you will lose. Sometimes a debt collector will just file a credit complaint against you and you would have to go to court to get that complaint removed from your record with the credit agency. The loan owner has no idea whether you returned the box at all. All they have is a debt security which simply says who owes the money and how much it is. In a court room they have zero evidence against you (unless you said something to them and they wrote it down or recorded it).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adf3ef84161a435d8661c3224d780854", "text": "I've had a BofA ATM screw up a deposit too. They will get it right. Call BofA or go to the same branch in the morning, explain the problem and submit a dispute. In my case, they credited my account immediately for the disputed amount. They'll get the cash from the ATM and reconcile the amounts in the machine with your claim. It'll take a few days to sort out. It all worked out fine for me, try not to stress. They'll make it right and you should be able to get the immediate credit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "206a20ebaca693f82b9bb49ffd9257ce", "text": "No, the 120 days rule only applies in cases of delay or cancellation. If the purchase went through and you got additional money elsewhere - you cannot re-deposit the distribution back. See IRC Sec. 72(t)(8)(E): If any distribution from any individual retirement plan fails to meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) solely by reason of a delay or cancellation of the purchase or construction of the residence, the amount of the distribution may be contributed to an individual retirement plan as provided in section 408 (d)(3)(A)(i) (determined by substituting “120th day” for “60th day” in such section)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "559e3242a47e027a1305f24643f9a308", "text": "No, unvested money returns to the employer, its not yours. They should send you W2 which will only show the actual (vested) monies you got.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f304fe393f813f932683294a175b44b7", "text": "In the rental application you are giving them express consent to check up on your credit and employment history for verification, you must be honest with them, if you have had no income for the last say 6 months then you have simply had no income. If you are worried about it, you can supply them with a longer history if it will help your situation, they may also call your employer to see that you will be returning to work or again receiving some sort of income. But also as stated, talk to the property manager, they can work both ways in either helping or not helping you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92cdf47bd73bdafd98fc93568c4d8667", "text": "You might spend 30/45 minutes a day sitting in traffic, but those towns are all so centrally located you can definitely shop around to try and find an affordable living situation. In Laurel you could live in Anne Arundel County, Prince Georges County, or Montgomery County and not be too far from work. Germantown and Temple Hills would be a bit more of a hellish commute, but you still have options if you don't mind sitting on the beltway everyday for a little while.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b5b18c47079bb6763c49d2b43c49a47", "text": "I found [this.](http://homeguides.sfgate.com/terminate-apartment-rental-lease-due-medical-condition-8142.html) It looks like you will need to go over the lease and look for any stipulations that allow your brother (or your parents if they cosigned) to break lease. You might want to talk to an attorney. Most leases stipulate a penalty to break lease, such as a month of rent. It seems unusual that they can charge rent until they find a new tenant, but I'm not a lawyer. Leases are an adhesion contract, meaning they are drafted by the landlord and they have most of the negotiating power. This is not inherantly bad, but it does mean that unusually harsh lease terms could be considered unconscionable, rendering the lease void. I encourage you to reread the lease and contact a lawyer. I know everyone says that, but it's good advice here. It sounds like it would be cheaper than taking this lying down and I haven't heard of many people successfully winning contract law cases pro-say. It can't hurt to get a free consultation.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
97b3b9b8e44e93085f5c478e314dbff2	Are the guaranteed returns of regulated utilities really what they sound like?	[ { "docid": "b1e00b39ad638ff408ef177d9410a9e8", "text": "Typically a private company is hit by demand supply issues and cost of inputs. In effect at times the cost of input may go up, it cannot raise the prices, because this will reduce demand. However certain public sectors companies, typically in Oil & Engery segements the services are offered by Public sector companies, and the price they charge is governed by Regulatory authorities. In essence the PG&E, the agreement for price to customers would be calculated as cost of inputs to PG&E, Plus Expenses Plus 11.35% Profit. Thus the regulated price itself governs that the company makes atleast 11.35% profit year on year. Does this mean that the shares are good buy? Just to give an example, say the price was $100 at face value, So essentially by year end logically you would have made 111.35/-. Assuming the company did not pay dividend ... Now lets say you began trading this share, there would be quite a few people who would say I am ready to pay $200 and even if I get 11.35 [on 200] it still means I have got ~6% return. Someone may be ready to pay $400, it still gives ~3% ... So in short the price of the stock would keep changing depending how the market percieves the value that a company would return. If the markets are down or the sentiments are down on energy sectors, the prices would go down. So investing in PG&E is not a sure shot way of making money. For actual returns over the years see the graph at http://www.pgecorp.com/investors/financial_reports/annual_report_proxy_statement/ar_html/2011/index.htm#CS", "title": "" }, { "docid": "683104378e7088f185902f2ccb001608", "text": "\"No. That return on equity number is a target that the regulators consider when approving price hikes. If PG&E tried to get a 20% RoE, the regulator would deny the request. Utilities are basically compelled to accept price regulation in return for a monopoly on utility business in a geographic area. There are obviously no guarantees that a utility will make money, but these good utilities are good stable investments that generally speaking will not make you rich, but appreciate nicely over time. Due to deregulation, however, they are a more complex investment than they once were. Basically, the utility builds and maintains a bunch of physical infrastructure, buys fuel and turns it into electricity. So they have fixed costs, regulated pricing, market-driven costs for fuel, and market-driven demand for electricity. Also consider that the marginal cost of adding capacity to the electric grid is incredibly high, so uneven demand growth or economic disruption in the utility service area can hurt the firms return on equity (and thus the stock price). Compare the stock performance of HE (the Hawaiian electric utlity) to ED (Consolidated Edison, the NYC utility) to SO (Southern Companies, the utility for much of the South). You can see that the severe impact of the recession on HE really damaged the stock -- location matters. Buying strategy is key as well -- during bad market conditions, money flows into these stocks (which are considered to be low-risk \"\"defensive\"\" investments) and inflates the price. You don't want to buy utilities at a peak... you need to dollar-cost average a position over a period of years and hold it. Focus on the high quality utilities or quality local utilities if you understand your local market. Look at Southern Co, Progress Energy, Duke Energy or American Electric Power as high-quality benchmarks to compare with other utilities.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "055d50d1148a5045c9afa3008cdd3e96", "text": "\"It's not my title. It's the original title. I was pointing out that as a headline, it makes more sense to point out that the businesses are apparently against this regulation. Rather than have the headline be formulated as a tautology, i.e. \"\"Consumers win after CFPB opens door to thing that benefits consumers\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5c828411013510f191bb0f58be880db", "text": "I'm not 100% familiar with the index they're using to measure hedge fund performance, but based on the name alone, comparing market returns to market neutral hedge fund returns seems a bit disingenuous. That doesn't mean the article is wrong, and they have a point about the democratization of data, but still.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87da2357c61d0267338d13fbd7c6e88e", "text": "\"Genuine (nearly) passive income can be had from some kinds of investing. Index funds are an example of a mostly self-managing investment. Of course investment involves some risk (the income is essentially paying you for taking that risk) and returns are reasonable but proportional to the risk -- IE, not spectacular unless the risk is high. If someone is claiming they can get you better than market rate of return, look carefully at what they are getting out of it and what the risks are. Fees subtract directly from your gains, and if they claim there is no additional risk, they need to prove that. You are giving someone your money. Be very sure you are going to get it back. If it isn't self-evident where the income comes from, it's probably a scam. If someone is using the term \"\"auto-pilot\"\", it is almost certainly a scam. If they are talking about website advertising and the like, it is far from autopilot if you want to make any noticable amount of money (though you may make money for them).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c49bd44e7d3b0a7175b32dfd136e5cd2", "text": "\"Let me see if I can restate your question: are speculative investments more volatile (subject to greater spikes and drops in pricing) than are more long-term investments which are defined by the predictability of their dividend returns? The short answer is: yes. However, where it gets complicated is in deciding whether something is a speculative investment. Take your example of housing. People who buy a house as an investment either choose to rent it out (so receive \"\"rent\"\" as \"\"dividend\"\") or live in it (foregoing dividends). Either way, the scale of the investment is large and this is often the only direct investment that people manage themselves. For this reason houses are bound up in the sentimental value people attach to a home, the difficulty of uprooting and moving elsewhere in search of cheaper housing or better employment, or the sunk cost of debt that can't be recovered by a fire-sale. Such inertia can lead to sudden sell-offs as critical inflection points are reached (such as hoped-for economic improvements fail to materialise and cash needs become critical). At different levels that is true of just about every investment. Driving price-volatility is the ease of sale and the trade-offs involved. A share that offers regular and dependable dividends, even if its absolute value falls, is going to be hung on to more frequently than those shares that suffer a similar decline but only offer a capital gain. For the latter, the race is on to sell before the drop neutralises any remaining capital gain the investor may have experienced. A house with a good tenant or a share with stable dividends will be kept in preference for the quick cash-return of selling an asset that offers no such ongoing returns. This would result, visually, in more eratic curves for \"\"speculative\"\" shares while more stable shares are characterised by periods of stability interspersed with moments of mania. But I have to take your query further, since you provide graphical evidence to support your thesis. Your charts combine varying time-scales, different sample rates and different scales (one of which is even a log scale). It becomes impossible to draw any sort of meaningful micro-comparison unless they're all presented using exactly the same criteria.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7913cc64d78cdbe244b3cf1c7757cbe4", "text": "Ok, the point you're missing is that installed base is irrelevant. Yes, there's much more total installed natgas than solar/wind, but that's not important for calculating the impact on coal retirements. To displace coal, you need to install something new. That new generation means coal needs to be less profitable or get turned off. So the real question is how much solar/wind have been installed in the last 5 years compared to natgas. These new installations replace coal that used to be burning. Again, early in the thread you stated that solar/wind had very little effect. That's not true, they have a very significant effect. Natgas deserves significant credit, but certainly not all of it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62a7fbd2c10236456f10836f11537282", "text": "Yes, but the move to regulated monopolies is tactical. Duke's deeper strategy is to prepare for the coming rise of distributed generation. Hiding behind regulatory barriers is a way to do that, and it gives them a stronger lobbying platform from which to attack DG, pushing for grid connection surcharges that will cripple rooftop solar. It's a copy of similar utility strategies in places like Spain and Australia.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37a0e0449da9a00d606b4d394d13947f", "text": "\"Yeah, I guess the entire report is probably false because of that. What you're saying is applicable to the renewable industry too. There's all kinds of other investments made on behalf of renewables that aren't calculated into dollar amounts. Most obviously is the money that never even hits the books by subsidizing through consumer/corporate tax breaks. For example: the company you work for more than likely has a recycling program. It doesn't make money because it's not profitable to recycle anything but aluminum, but if they didn't have the program they would get penalized (not directly necessarily but would lose out on \"\"green\"\" initiative funding). The rest of what you are saying is as intangible as the first thing. If you think solar panels on your roof is going to keep the military out of other countries, you're clinical. And if you can't notice a correlation between the total lack of production coupled with the massive amounts of money being wasted then there's no discussion to be had. By the by, that article has no citations and the link to any additional sourcing is broken.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1509023288a8da3734b8ee61111d8871", "text": "I actually deal with the regulators, and am familiar with the regs. So no, I'm not getting my information from the news. There's a really strong bias there. The news is only going to mention things that seem objectionable. Believe it or not, everyone in government is not crooked.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9e7117f420db974d1c03f20f111c167", "text": "That's not at all what I said. I said regulation is inevitable. The question is, in whose favour we regulate? Employers, owners of capital, or workers. Deregulation usually favours owners of capital and employers, and ends up concentrating wealth in the hands of the few. Because surprise surprise people would rather invest their money in something that just goes up in value rather than put all the effort into creating jobs or paying workers more. Since there are no laws to encourage them to do so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa219a29dc45802ac90dbaada0427f03", "text": "Returns: Variable, as with all investments. Legitimate: Contact the usual major investment-fund houses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fdc842cd9d91b75fc1315bd0d29e4a0", "text": "\"> all we need to do is show that such a thought process is theoretically sound in order to throw that premise into serious question Not really. You're splitting hairs. If you want to suggest that Wall Street enjoys tax paying, the onus is on you. > But if the actuaries can't figure out a way to do it, then wouldn't that be cause to reevaluate the blind faith many people place in markets? I feel like I'm a freshman in college again. There are plenty of examples of market failures. The temptation is to say that merely because there is a market failure, that therefore control by means of bureaucrats is necessary, without considering whether there is also a bureaucratic failure or whether the possibility of failure is as high as the original market scenario. A power plant causes pollution, leading to reduced air quality and quality of life for the surrounding population. This is a problem! The power plant is imposing a cost on me and I deserve to be compensated. \"\"Therefore, bureaucrats!\"\" Fine. But now you've shifted the problem from simply compensating for pollution to figuring out how on earth to do it fairly. And you've introduced a means for abuse of the system, incentivizing people to live closer to the problem or claim damages they don't have. Power plants still require a profit to operate, so costs will rise. We're now charging people more money to go to the company to then go back to the people with the additional inefficiency of a government watch group. Is the original scenario a problem? Absolutely. It's a failure of the free market to correctly provide according to individual's rights since everyone's air is collectively polluted. Is the alternative better? I don't know. It's certainly more complicated. > which is an asinine thing to do if you're concerned with actually changing the system Why do you think this, exactly? I agree with you, but I'm curious if we agree for the same reasons. I agree for the same reason I don't give my alcoholic family members any money at the end of the month.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3275bd81118f9fd05283645ea8c09d79", "text": "Hey, sorry man, I didn't mean to come off as so argumentative. This is clearly an issue that rustles a lot of jimmies. Thanks for the article, I'll read it over. I used to work in HFT and the people I worked with were some of the brightest people I know and the work was extremely fulfilling, so I have a bit of an emotional soft spot for it that can cloud my debate skills. It's clearly not as one sided as I believe but I encourage you to keep learning as I am. Dark Pools by Scott Paterson is another book that while it leans towards Michael Lewis' position, I found it to be a much more historically accurate account based on what I've learned from people in industry, you should check it out!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc70d2da679cab4f2df92d9dfa71a212", "text": "You'd have to investigate, ask the right questions. I'd say that's a speculative bet since the electric companies would see that coming a mile away and would have a plan so that it didn't materially affect their business. I don't think it would affect securities or derivatives market significantly enough to bring certain profits. Once again I'm no expert though, it all depends on what your research uncovers and how confident you are in your prediction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67fb4b269d933ad77eb2517f031ef028", "text": "Just to be clear, I've been in the industry, specifically in government and regulatory affairs, seven years. In the US, there is generation, transmission, distribution, merchant function/retail function, and government impositions (fees, taxes, environmental regulations, etc), just like presented in the image. In my experience, attributing approximately 50% to T&D and 50% to everything else is pretty accurate (in fact, T&D costs are often higher than all the others). I'm sure our overall rates are lower (depending on location -- Hawaii's rates are astronomical), but I don't think these percentages are that off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a34d93c4315a369011138b72d6ea2cd4", "text": "The site you link to suggests the majority save on this plan. AC is tough, but most other power hogs are in your control, washer/drier, dish washer, etc. This is part of a bigger picture of power transmission, and management. The utility cost is the highest for peak demand, i.e. they need to have capacity for the peak use, but only selling average use, on average. This billing plan matches what you pay with the true cost, and you save by avoiding the peak times.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e9c89c49d5c95132e2706221fd0ecce6	College student - I'm a 'dependent' and my parents won't apply for the Parent PLUS loan or cosign a private loan	[ { "docid": "2140584e169d629a1d505262f59597bf", "text": "Smart parents not wanting to get stuck with a student loan or co-signing on a loan. because rent is so high Are you able to live with your parents? Is there anyway to reduce the cost of rent like renting a room? Can you move somewhere where the rent is cheaper? working 25 hours per week Working 25 hours per week and taking 6 hours is a pretty light schedule. It is not even 40 hours per week. What is stopping you from working 40 hours and paying for school from your salary? In my own life I created a pretty crappy situation for myself when I was a young man. I really wanted to go to a prestigious university, but ended up going to a community college, and then to a university that was lesser known in a less expensive area. I had to work like crazy, upwards of 50 hours per week. I also took a full load in a difficult degree program. You probably don't have to go to the extremes that I went through, but you can work more. Most adults work at their jobs well more than 40 hours per week, then come home and continue to work (on the house, raising kids, trying to start a side business, etc...). So you might as well become an adult now. There are ways to become independent from your parents for FAFSA like have a baby, get married, or join the military. I'd only recommend the last one as you will also receive the GI Bill. Another option is to try and obtain a job that offers financial aid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e2ee7ee87735ca5b9e3bfd3e33331d1", "text": "My son is in a similar situation where he is 21 and in college. My wife and I claimed him as a dependant on our taxes last year. He had still been able to get some student loans as a dependant as well as scholarships. I have told him that we will not cosign on a loan for him. It isn't because we don't like our son, it is simply because too many unexpected things can happen. He has been working multiple jobs which is one thing I would suggest as well as donating plasma for extra money to have a social life. As an electrical engineering major he doesn't have much time to be social. He cuts rent by having roommates and does most of his own cooking to help with food costs. The main thing he does to keep his costs under control is attends a school that isn't outrageously expensive. An expensive school does not offer as much benefit for an undergrad degree as it might for a graduate degree. Another option is to look for a job that had some sort of tuition assistance. Another option along that same line is look into military service either active duty or reserves as there is tuition help to be found there. There are options that don't involve debt. As a side note my son used a student loan last year however, this coming year he has his budget figured out and he will not be needing one at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc7fda7d3c5fb49456dd9db0fe564a1b", "text": "I was in a similar (but not quite as bad situation) a couple years ago, and I had a stroke of luck that helped me, but your friend might be able to force a similar situation. My parents refused to take out the huge parent loan (understandably so), but my dad made enough money that I wasn't eligible for much aid. My stroke of luck came when they got divorced; I could refile my FAFSA with only one parent (using my mom with very little income), my aid shot through the roof and nearly covered my undergrad (this happened in California, I don't know if this works in other states). My advice for your friend would be to take the 6 units/part time job option, but do what she can to earn enough to pay her own rent/food/other bills. I think the requirement for filing as an independent is that you supply >50% of your own income. It won't kick in right away, but for next school year this would end up getting her a lot more money from the state/federal governments. For me it was enough to cover my school, food, rent, gas, car payment, and still have a little left over. (I don't know if this is still possible, and I know it doesn't work for graduate school, or if it applies to every state. It might be an option worth pursuing though)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab91b018cd01dff36818d4ff6303d3d0", "text": "If the 6 credits per semester working part time schedule includes no loans, consider this. Yes, it may take you twice as long to finish, BUT, you'll have a lot of working experience, AND zero student loans when you're done. Compare this to someone who graduates in four years and has 20k in student loans. If they set up a 20 year repayment for the loans, they'll still have 16-18k left to pay and 4 years of job experience. You'll have 8 years of half time job experience and zero debt. The key would be to find a job in your area of interest. More ideal would be one that pays for classes as a benefit. Then you might increase your class load and decrease the total time to graduate, AND have relevant job experience when you graduate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3ecc9a7794d047789f96114e8259803", "text": "I was in that same situation years ago with my parents. One way she could apply for a loan in her name without her parents is if she is not currently living with them she shouldn't need them to cosign if she doesn't have bad credit. But if she isn't living with them and they aren't financing her room and board they can't claim her as a dependent so if she really wants to stick it to them she can go and try to politely explain how the loans work and tell them if they don't cosign for her then she will apply on her own (which she can only do while not living with them I believe but not sure) and they will HAVE to STOP claiming her as a dependent on their taxes. If they don't agree she can put her foot down and force them to stop claiming her and tell them she will file her own application anyway and if they continue claiming her and get in trouble for it it's their own fault cause she warned them to stop first. They may agree to cosign rather than lose her as a dependent if it makes that big of a difference on their taxes, if they don't then she can forcefully punish them financially and their taxes will go up. Those were my choices when my parents refused to cosign for me to live at school but that was back in 1999-2000 and things may have changed since then, things also change state by state and I live in PA.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f051c34569b2e60927e850eb92ba8135", "text": "\"There are quite some options, but without additional information, I can only provide examples. Last year I had the option to buy a house, but I decided against it because in my area it is getting harder and harder every year to sell it at a reasonable price. But if I had bought a house, my mother would have lent me the money, with me paying it back to her over the years on 3% interest. So it would have been some kind of a private loan. But my mom would never have taken ownership of the house, since it was not her intention to own it in any way. (Does your dad intend to own the house and rent it to you? If yes, and if you are comfortable with renting instead of buying, then this is an option.) The second option, the one we discarded because of the additional cost, is that I could have taken a loan, paying 4.5% interest to the bank, which would then pay under 1% to my mom, and keep the rest. Banks always want to make profit, and this profit has to come from somewhere - from the difference between the interest rates. If your dad has 230k on the bank, and you owe 230k to the bank, you are better off if you keep the bank out - at least as long as your dad is comfortable with lending you money, and you are comfortable with owing him money. (my gf would never borough money from her mother, because her mother would always play the \"\"you are in my debt\"\" card - on each and every visit, and whenever she needed help in any way...) So the key is: What does your dad feel comfy with - and what do you feel comfy with. If possible, keep the banks out, but set up a written contract between you and your dad.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00b6bde49e1b1a7faf3b2b014491a62f", "text": "I got a credit card as a student with no income, not even a part time job. They called me, I agreed to one thing and they did another and now I have an old credit history. They don't do this anymore. But technically, student loan debt is unsecured?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e263b6f80d24c88b2569fd6c7986147", "text": "\"To explain why you have to be 18: If you are not 18, then any contract that you sign can be voided (made invalid) by either you or your parents. So it would be completely legal for you to go to the bank, ask for a $1000 loan, and for the bank to give you the loan. But then you could spend the money, and tell the bank \"\"sorry, I changed my mind, I don't want that loan, and sorry again, but the money is gone\"\". At that point, there would be nothing the bank could do to get their money back. Obviously, banks don't like this, so they won't lend you money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74d11f73384f97df8cd325a8fd3f3011", "text": "\"First, it's clear from your story that you very likely should be able to receive some financial aid. That may be in the form of loans or, better, grants in which you just get free money to attend college. For example, a Pell grant. You won't get all you'd need for a free ride this way, but you can really make a dent in what you'd pay. The college may likely also provide financial aid to you. In order to get any of this, though, you have to fill out a FAFSA. There are deadlines for this for each state and each college (there you would ask individually). I'd get looking into that as soon as you can. Do student loans have to be paid monthly? Any loan is a specific agreement between a lender and a borrower, so any payment terms could apply, such as bimonthly or quarterly. But monthly seems like the most reasonable assumption. Generally, you should assume the least favorable (reasonably likely) terms for you, so that you are prepared for a worst-case scenario. Let's say monthly. Can I just, as I had hoped, borrow large sums of money and only start paying them after college? Yes. That is a fair summary of all a student loan is. Importantly, though, some loans are federal government subsidized loans for which the interest on the loan is paid for you as long as you stay in college + 6 months (although do check that is the current situation). Unsubsidized loans may accrue interest from the start of the loan period. If you have the option, obviously try hard to get the subsidized loans as the interest can be significant. I made a point to only take subsidized loans. WARNING: Student loans currently enjoy a (nearly?) unique status in America as being one of the only loan types that are not forgivable in bankruptcy. This means that if you leave college with $100,000 in debt that begins accruing interest, there is no way for you to get out of it short of fleeing the country or existence. And at that point the creditors may come after your mother for the balance. These loans can balloon into outrageous amounts due to compounding interest. Please have a healthy fear of student loans. For more on this, listen to this hour long radio program about this. Would a minimum wage job help, Of course it will \"\"help\"\" but will it \"\"help enough\"\"? That depends on how much you work. If you make $7.50/hr and work 20 hrs/week for all but 3 weeks of the year, after taxes you will be adding about $6,000 to offset your costs. In 3 years of college (*see below), that's $18,000, which, depending on where you go, is not bad at helping defray costs. If you are at full-time (40 hrs), then it is $12k/yr or $36k toward defraying costs. These numbers are nothing to sniff at. Do you have any computer/web/graphics skills? It's possible you could find ways to make more than minimum wage if you learn some niche IT industry skill. (If I could go back and re-do those years I wouldn't have wasted much time delivering pizzas and would have learned HTML in the 90s and would have potentially made some significant money.) would college and full-time job be manageable together? That's highly specific to each situation (which job? how far a commute to it? which major? how efficient are you? how easily do you learn?) but I would say that, for the most part, it's not a good idea, not only for the academic-achievement side of it, but the personal-enrichment aspect of college. Clubs, sports, relationships, activities, dorm bull sessions, all that good stuff, they deserve their space and time and it'd be a shame to miss out on that because you're on the 2nd shift at Wal-Mart 40hrs/week. How do I find out what scholarships, grants, and financial aid I can apply for? Are you in a high school with a career or guidance counselor? If so, go to that person about this as a start. If not, there are tons of resources out there. Public libraries should have huge directories of scholarships. The Federal Student Loan program has a website. There are also a lot of resources online found by just searching Google for scholarships--though do be careful about any online sources (including this advice!). Sermon: Lastly, please carefully consider the overall cost vs. benefit to you. College in 2012 is anything but cheap. A typical price for a textbook is $150 or more. Tuition and board can range over $40k at private colleges. There is a recent growing call for Americans to re-think the automatic nature of going to college considering the enormous financial burden it puts many families under. Charles Murray, for one, has put out a book suggesting that far too many students go to college now, to society's and many individuals' detriment (he's a controversial thinker, but I think some of his points are valid and actually urgent). With all that said, consider ways to go to college but keep costs down. Public colleges in your state will almost always be significantly cheaper than private or out-of-state. Once there, aim for As and Bs--don't cheat yourself out of what you pay for. And lastly, consider a plan in which you complete college in three years, by attending summer courses. This website has a number of other options for helping to reduce the cost of college.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ae04426816e7835725a85d8134b628d", "text": "\"It depends on other factors like your income, \"\"need\"\" and other assets. Parents are expected to contribute 6% of their assets, students at least 35%. 529s and ESAs (which I think may be in the process of being phased out) count as parental assets, which may or may not be a good thing. If this is a significant chunk of money, you need to talk to a professional deeply familiar with the financial aid process. Colleges are rapacious for your money, and you can easily \"\"overpay\"\" for a child's education, particularly if you send your kid to a private school.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "826e4f8be008fa2732fe046f77af39f1", "text": "Student loan is a class of unsecured loan. The characteristics that define a student loan are, primarily, that it is a loan that is intended to be used by someone who is currently a student. Beyond that, though, there are many variations. The different kinds of requirements usually have to do with who is eligible for the loan, and with what the loan is allowed to be used to pay. Some loans have other limitations, such as only being allowed to be directly paid to the institution. Some student loans are federally guaranteed (meaning the Federal Government will repay the bank if you default). Those have a lower interest rate, typically, and often have more stringent requirements, such as only full-time students being eligible, being need-based, and limitations on what the loan's funds can be used for. See studentaid.ed.gov for more information. Many private student loans have quite lax limitations. Some for example have nearly no limitation as to what they can fund; many are allowed to be taken out by part-time students and even non-degree-seeking students in some cases. Private loans usually have somewhat higher rates (as they're entirely unsecured) to go along with the lower restrictions and higher borrowing limits. You'd have to see the specific details of any particular loan to know what it's allowed to pay for, so if you choose this route, know what you plan to use it to pay for before you go looking.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3702a50e13b067ed77d7b377daccf624", "text": "\"Like everybody else I'm picking up on the school loans - you're mother isn't exactly earning a massive amount of money given her cost of living, why is she taking out student loans that benefit you and your sister? I'm not trying to be offensive but it's fairly obvious that she can't afford it. As a first step I think you should at least take over paying your own student loans (you sound like you're out of college already and if you have $8k to \"\"lend\"\" to your mother you probably have enough money to pay the student loans that benefited you, after all) or as someone else also recommended, assume your loans. As to your sister, maybe it's time for her to get (another) job to pay for the tuition so her mother doesn't have to go further into debt. Again, I'm not trying to be mean here but your mother is digging herself deeper and deeper into a hole because of the tuition. Something's gotta give, and delivering pizza or getting a paper round is a small sacrifice here. Next, the car - unless she has a managed to work herself out of some of this mess, I would consider getting a much cheaper car instead. This is provided that she isn't upside down on the loan. Personally I wouldn't trade in a vehicle with an upside down loan, if anything that's another bad financial decision. Assuming that she isn't upside down on the loan and has some equity in the car, I would seriously consider selling the car and using the equity to buy something small and cheap. That should also hopefully reduce the cost of gas and maybe insurance somewhat. I think these points are probably the quickest steps that can be taken towards recovering this situation. You already mentioned the longer term plans like downsizing the apartment, but TBH I'm not sure that this is really necessary. The big elephant in the room are the college costs and removing those from the equation would give her a serious amount of breathing room.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5d08e321efc507002eba796822e1af0", "text": "\"Is there any way through this? Yes, but you're not going to like it. If your friend has guaranteed the loans, then it's your friend's obligation to pay them when the brother-in-law is not cooperating. That's what it means to guarantee a loan. (Obligatory: \"\"Before lending your friends or family money, ask yourself which you need more.\"\")\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0609f66030464ce8977f64934cb2684a", "text": "I am 17 and currently have a loan out for a car. My parents also have terrible credit, and because I knew this I was able to get around it. Your co-signer on your loan does not have to be your parent, at least in Wisconsin, I used my grandmother, who has excellent credit, as my cosigner. With my loan, we had made it so it doesn't hurt her credit if I don't get my payments in on time, maybe this is something for you to look into.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ca37ccaeb56e7276aa66a6183d66820", "text": "\"I really don't feel co-signing this loan is in the best interests of either of us. Lets talk about the amount of money you need and perhaps I can assist you in another way. I would be honest and tell them it isn't a good deal for anybody, especially not me. I would then offer an alternative \"\"loan\"\" of some amount of money to help them get financing on their own. The key here is the \"\"loan\"\" I offer is really a gift and should it ever be returned I would be floored and overjoyed. I wouldn't give more than I can afford to not have. Part of why I'd be honest to spread the good word about responsible money handling. Co-signed loans (and many loans themselves) probably aren't good financial policy if not a life & death or emergency situation. If they get mad at me it won't matter too much because they are family and that won't change.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e96a248e0185b8c754ebc2925ba34621", "text": "\"If you're in the US then no. You cannot enter a binding contract therefore you will not get a loan from a bank. Cosigner or no cosigner, anything to do with a loan and a bank will not involve you. Your parents can get a loan, then they can give you the money, then you can pay them for their payments, but none of that means the loan has anything to do with you. It's their loan, if they default it's on them. Given your age, you probably will ignore everyone else's advice here about this trip being a bad idea if you can't afford it, but you should reconsider it. You will be paying for this trip long after the fun and excitement has worn off. This is the cycle that sends alot of families into bankruptcy, and it's a horrible habit to learn so young. \"\"Loan\"\" shouldn't even be in your vocabulary dealing with anything other than a library book.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9ba2fbf8bc4ade401666b89c7123cbf", "text": "\"First of all, I'm happy that the medical treatments were successful. I can't even imagine what you were going through. However, you are now faced with a not-so-uncommon reality that many households face. Here's some other options you might not have thought of: I would avoid adding more debt if at all possible. I would first focus on the the cost side. With a good income you can also squeeze every last dollar out of your budget to send them to school. I agree with your dislike of parent loans for the same reasons, plus they don't encourage cost savings and there's no asset to \"\"give back\"\" if school doesn't work out (roughly half of all students that start college don't graduate) I would also avoid borrowing more than 80% of your home's value to avoid PMI or higher loan rates. You also say that you can pay off the HELOC in 5 years - why can you do that but not cash flow the college? Also note that a second mortgage may be worse that a HELOC - the fees will be higher, and you still won't be able to borrow more that what the house is worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39759f3a694b4c798f6717f6d8314396", "text": "\"This is a tricky question, because the financial aid system can create odd incentives. Good schools tend to price themselves above and beyond any reasonable middle-class ability to save and then offer financial aid, much of it in the form of internal \"\"grants\"\" or \"\"loans\"\". If you think about it, the internal grant is more of a discount than a grant since no money need have ever existed to \"\"fund\"\" the grant. The actual price to the parents is based on financial aid paperwork and related rules, perhaps forming a college price-setting cartel. It is these rules that need to be considered when creating a savings plan. Suppose it is $50k/year to send your kids to the best school admitting them. Thats $200k for the 4 years. Suppose you had $50k now to save instead of $10K, and are wondering whether to put it in your son's college savings (whether or not you can do so in a tax advantaged way) or to pay down the mortgage. If you put it in your kids savings, and the $50k becomes $75k over time, that $75k will be used up in a year and a half as the financial aid system will suck it dry first before offering you much help. On the other hand, if you put the $50k on paying down the mortgage [provided the mortgage is \"\"healthy\"\" not upside down], your house payment will still be the same when your kids go to college. The financial aid calculations will consider that the kid has no savings, and allocate a \"\"grant\"\" and some loans the first year and a parental portion that you might be able to tap with a home equity loan or work overtime. Generally, you should also be encouraging your kids to excel and perhaps obtain academic scholarships or at least obtain some great opportunities. A large college savings fund might be as counterproductive as a zero fund. They shouldn't be expecting to breeze through some party school with a nice pad and car, homework assistance, and beer money. Unless they are good at a sport, like maybe football -- in which case you won't need to be the provider. It is not obvious how much the optimal ESA amount is. It might not be $0. Saving like crazy in there probably isn't the best thing to do, either.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d72f5afc0e01be12a8ab6a6c4558c9a", "text": "Because, without the govt backstopping/guaranteeing that your local liberal arts degree student will have money to pay for their education, banks who make loans would have to worry about the student's ability to repay those loans. The likelihood goes up dramatically for STEM majors so ergo, there would be fewer non-STEM majors because those majors would have to be, more than now, self funded.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85a12d5a105747afa120837f2fee77ef", "text": "Yes, banks still offer combo loans, but it is going to depend on the appraised value of your home. Typically lenders will allow you to finance up to 80% loan to value on the first mortgage (conforming loan amount) and 95% combined loan to value on a HELOC. I would start by checking with your local credit union or bank branch. They have more competitive rates and can be more flexible with loan amount and appraised value guidelines.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
19d73044c883c6373bc9f7ce74381cf0	Should I pay off my car loan within the year?	[ { "docid": "ab26a4fd6f538c04bfc2f5b70df5e51d", "text": "Personally, I don't think that the interest from the car loan is worth the credit history you're building through it. There are other ways to build credit that don't require you to pay interest, like the credit card you mentioned (so long as you keep paying off the balance). So I'd go that route: ditch the auto loan and replace it with a line of consumer credit. Just be careful not to overspend because the card will likely have a higher interest rate than your loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37e08839cdf11b0ddd69897437b1b0ad", "text": "Something I'd like to plant firmly into your mind - If you're able to save up enough money to buy the things you want outright, credit will be of little use to you. Many people find once they've accumulated very good credit scores by use of good financial habits, that they rarely end up using credit, and get little out of having a 'great' credit score compared to an 'average' credit score. Of course, a lot of that would depend on your financial situation, but it's something to keep in mind. As stated by others, and documented widely online, you don't need to make payments on a loan or carry a card balance to build your credit history. Check your credit on a popular site, such as Credit Karma (No affiliation). There, you'll see a detailed breakdown of the different areas of your credit profile that matter; things like: The best thing I could recommend is get a credit line or credit card, and use it responsibly. Carrying a balance will waste money on interest, much like the car payment. Just having it and not over-using it (Or not using it at all) will 'build' your credit history. Of course, some institutions may close your account after X number of years of inactivity. With this in mind, I'd say it's safe to pay off the car loan. Read your agreement and make sure there aren't early termination / early payment fees for this. Edit: There have been notes in the comments section's of question/answer's here about concerns with getting apartment. My two cents here: Most apartments I've seen check your credit for negative marks. Having no credit history, and thus never missing a payment or having a judgement made against you, will likely be enough to get you into most normal-quality apartments, assuming the rest of your application / profile is in order, like: - Good references, if asked for them - At least 2.5x rent payment in gross income etc, things like that. If they really think you're a risk, they may ask for a larger deposit (Though I'm sure in some areas there may be restrictions on whether they can do this, or how much they can do it) and still let you rent there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7f9a07b8ec9ffe76d2b2a478e767f36", "text": "Contrary to popular belief, you can build your credit (if that is important to you) without paying a penny in interest. This is done through the responsible use of credit cards, paying the bill in full each month without accruing any interest charges. If I were you, I would pay off the loan today, if possible. After that, if you decide you need to build up your credit, apply for a credit card. If you have difficulty with that, you can get a small secured credit card or retail store credit card until you have enough history to get a regular credit card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "879a2f9d08d157b5b6885499455c88a8", "text": "Generally, banks will report your loan to at least one (if not all three) credit bureaus - although that is not required by law. The interest you're paying, in addition to your insurance isn't justifiable for building credit. I would recommend paying the car off and then perhaps applying for a secure credit card if you are worried about being rejected. Of course, since you have very little credit, applying for an unsecured card and getting rejected won't hurt you in the long run. If you are rejected, you can always go for a secured credit card the second time. As I mentioned in my comments, it's better to show 6 months of on-time payments than to have no payment history at all. So if your goal is to secure an apartment near campus, I'm sure you're already a step ahead of the other students.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e28a61090dd27438f9dca6c582fb29c", "text": "Your plan isn't bad, but it probably isn't worth the cost for the small amount of credit building it will achieve. If you do decide to continue with it though, you'll save in interest if you make the big payment now rather than in 6 months. In other words, you can take the minimum payment, multiply it by 5, subtract that amount from the total you owe and pay the difference immediately. This way you'll still get the 6 months of reporting to the credit bureaus, but you'll pay less interest since you'll have less principle each month. I would recommend applying for the credit card right now. I believe you'll probably get approved now. If you do, then pay off the car loan without thinking about it. (If you don't get approved, think about it, then probably still pay it off.) Regarding the full coverage insurance, even after the loan is paid off and you aren't required to have it, you may still want to keep it. Even if you're the best driver on earth, if someone hits you and doesn't have insurance, or they have insurance and drive off, or a deer runs in front of you, etc, you'll lose your car and won't be reimbursed. Also, as Russell pointed out in the comments below, without collision coverage your insurance company has no incentive to work on your behalf when someone else hits you, so even if it's not your fault you may still not get reimbursed. So, I wouldn't pass on the full coverage unless your car isn't worth very much or you can stomach losing it if something happens. Good luck, and congrats on being able to pay for a car in full at 19 years old.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c93a4e0bfe64a572b644d53a87028c0d", "text": "Typically the power of capitalized interest would work in your favor and you could carry the loan paying it down while investing the original sum which would earn interest. BUT you aren't going to get any sort of return to compare with 15% so pay off that loan immediately. Also contrary to popular belief (and reiterated here) paying off incurred balance on your credit card every month is responsible use of credit but it will not do much for your credit score. The score ultimately means your ability to pay your bills and most importantly your willingness to pay interest, i.e. revolving the borrowed money. At least in the consumer market where the product they want you to buy is paying monthly interest charges.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e47987fedce704887117e8a35ac05629", "text": "\"Credit reports have line items that, if all is well, say \"\"paid as agreed.\"\" A car loan almost certainly gets reported. In your case it probably says the happy \"\"paid as agreed.\"\" It will continue to say that if you pay it off in full. You can get the happy \"\"paid as agreed\"\" from a credit card too. You can get it by paying the balance by the due date every month, or paying the mininum, or anything in between, on time. But you'll blow less money in interest if you pay each bill in full each month. You don't have to carry a balance. In the US you can get a free credit report once a year from each of the three credit bureaus. Here's the way to do that with minimal upsell/cross-sell hassles. https://www.annualcreditreport.com/ In your situation you'd probably be smart to ask for a credit report every four months (from each bureau in turn) so you can see how things are going. They don't give you your FICO score for free, but you don't really care about that until you're going for a big loan, like for a condo. It might be good to take a look at one of those free credit reports real soon, as you prepare to close out your car loan. If you need other loans, consider working with a credit union. They sometimes offer better interest rates, and they often are diligent about making credit bureau reports for their good customers; they help you build credit. You mentioned wanting to cut back on insurance coverage. It's a worthy goal, but it's generally called \"\"self-insuring\"\" in the business. If you cancel your collision coverage and then wreck your car, you absorb the cost of replacing it. So think about your personal ability to handle that kind of risk.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db6d12a2336fa5291ef982bbf1c47a58", "text": "Pay it off....I've only ever paid interest on mortgages to buy the houses I've lived in (I paid both mortgages of years ahead of schedule) & as a result my credit rating's way above average, I use credit cards for everything, pay 'em off in full every month unless I'm paid not to (currently have around 8,000 sitting interest free while the cash earns 6% elsewhere). Life's sweet if you understand the system. Hell if you don't. Keep saving...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76f88f0cd1824938c0967712aa2c1b41", "text": "First, don't owe (much) money on a car that's out of warranty. If you have an engine blow up and repairs will cost the lion's share of the car's bluebook value, the entire car loan immediately comes due because the collateral is now worthless. This puts you in a very miserable situation because you must pay off the car suddenly while also securing other transportation! Second, watch for possible early-payment penalties. They are srill lokely cheaper than paying interest, but run the numbers. Their purpose is to repay the lender the amount of money they already paid out to the dealer in sales commission or kickback for referring the loan. The positive effects you want for your credit report only require an open loan; owing more money doesn't help, it hurts. However, interest is proportional to principal owed, so a $10,000 car loan is 10 times the interest cost of a $1000 car loan. That means paying most of it off early can fulfill your purpose. As the car is nearer payoff, you can reduce costs further (assuming you cna handle the hit) by increasing the deductible on collision and comprehensive (fire and theft) auto insurance. It's not just you paying more co-pay, it also means the insurance company doesn't have to deal with smaller claims at all, e.g. Nodody with a $1000 deductivle files a claim on an $800 repair. If the amount you owe is small compared to its bluebook value, and within $1000-2000 of paid off, the lender may be OK with you dropping collision and comprehensive coverage altogether (assuming you are). All of this adds up to paying most of it off, but not all, may be the way to go. You could also talk to your lender about paying say, 3/4 of it off, and refinancing the rest as a 12-month deal.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3c5a9302dc720a0ce0b07887b5d7b754", "text": "\"Making extra principal payments will reduce the term of your loan. I wouldn't sign up for a biweekly schedule, just do it yourself so you have more flexibility. A simple spreadsheet will allow you to play \"\"What if?\"\" and make it clear that extra principal payments are most effective early in the term of the loan. My wife and I paid off our home in less than 10 years with this approach. Some will say that the opportunity costs of not using that money for something else outweighs the gains. I would say that not having a mortgage has a positive impact on your cash flow and your assets (you own the home), which combine to create more opportunity, not less. That being said, It should be obvious that paying off higher interest debt first is the priority, (Paying off a zero percent interest car loan early is just foolish)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ae58a5ff9a42bcaf480458f040d5444", "text": "By paying the $11,000 into the 2.54% loan you will save $23.30 in interest every month. By paying the $11,000 into the 3.625% loan you will save $33.20 in interest every month. If your objective is to get rid of one loan quicker so repayments can go to the other loan to pay off sooner, I would put the $11,000 into the 2.54% loan and pay that off as quick as possible, then put any extra payments into the mortgage at 3.625%. Pay only the minimum amounts into the 0% car loan as this is not costing you anything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0ae376761c4cf328781fca14cbcf687", "text": "The answer depends entirely on your mortgage terms - is the interest rate low, how many years left? Questions like this are about Cost of Capital. If your mortgage has a low interest for a lot of years, you have a low cost of capital. By paying it off early, you are dumping that low cost of capital. Use the extra money to start a business, invest in something or even buy another property (rental). Whenever you have a low cost of capital, don't rush to get rid of it. Of course, if there are no other investment/business opportunities available and the extra money is going into a low return savings account, you might as well pay down your debt. Or if you lack the self discipline to use the extra money properly - buying flat screens and meals out - then yeah just pay down your debt. But if you're disciplined with the extra money, use it to get access to more capital and make that new capital work for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3308e4c8f1bb1711105dc3cb749bb0b", "text": "Here's my take: 1) Having a car loan and paying it on time helps build credit. Not as much as having credit cards (and keeping them paid or carrying balance just enough to be reported and then paying it), but it counts. 2) Can't you set in your bank, not the lender, something to pay the car automagically for you? Then you will be paying it on time without having to think on it. 3) As others said, do read the fine print.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2bcff75efa64863edad934ea3a368296", "text": "\"You say \"\"it's expensive\"\". I'm going to interpret this as \"\"the monthly payments are too high\"\". Basically, you need to get your old loan paid off, presumably by selling the car you have now. This is the tough part. If you sold the car now, how much would you get for it? You can use Kelley Blue Book to figure out what the car is roughly worth. That's not a guarantee that it will actually sell for that much. Look in your local classifieds to see what similar cars are selling for. (Keep in mind that you will usually get less for your old car if you trade it in versus sell it yourself.) Now, if you owe more than your car is worth, you're in a really tight spot. If you don't get enough money when you sell it, you are still stuck with the remainder of the loan. In that case, it is usually best to just stick with the car you have, and be more cautious about payments and loan length the next time you finance a car. Penalties: Most car loans don't have any kind of early repayment penalty. However, you should check your loan paperwork just to make sure.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78b7e7d1ebadbacbc9ae26e90af8340f", "text": "The first thing that strikes me is: Is this a time-limited offer? Because if you can expect the offer to still be valid in a few weeks, why not just wait that month (which will earn you the money) and buy the car then? The second thing you need to consider is obviously the risk that in the interim, there will be an actual emergency which would require the money that you no longer have. The third thing to consider is whether you need the car now. Do you require a car to get around and your current one is breaking down, perhaps even to the point that repairing it would cost you more than buying a new car and it is currently not safe to drive? If so, compare the cost of repairing to the cost of buying; if the difference is small, and the new car would be more likely to be reliable than the old car after spending the money, then it can make sense to buy a new car and perhaps sell the old one in its current condition to someone who likes to tinker. (Even if you only recover a few hundreds of dollars, that's still money that perhaps you wouldn't otherwise have.) The fourth thing I would consider, especially given the time frame involved, is: Can you get a loan to buy the new car? Even if the interest rate is high, one month's worth of interest expense won't set you back very far, and it will keep the money in your emergency fund for if there is an actual emergency in the weeks ahead. Doing so might be a better choice than to take the money out of the emergency fund, if you have the opportunity; save the emergency fund for when that opportunity does not exist. And of course, without knowing how much you earn, take care to not end up with a car that is no more reliable than what you have now. Without knowing how much you earn and what the car you have in mind would cost, it's hard to say anything for certain, but if the car you have in mind costs less than a month's worth of net pay for you, consider whether it's likely to be reliable. Maybe you are making an absolutely stellar pay and the car will be perfectly fine; but there's that risk. Running the car by a mechanic to have it briefly checked out before buying it may be a wise move, just to make sure that you don't end up with a large car repair expense in a few months when the transmission gives up, for example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e5776554e72177e1428313f872537e1", "text": "\"Thanks for your question. Definitely pay the car down as soon as possible (reasoning to follow). In fact, I would go even further and recommend the following: Why? 1) Make money risk free - the key here is RISK FREE. By paying down the loan now, you can avoid paying interest on the additional amount paid toward principal risk free. Imagine this scenario: if you walked into a bank and they said, \"\"If you give us $100, we'll give you $103 back today\"\", would you do it? That is exactly what you get to do by not paying interest on the remaining loan principal. 2) The spread you might make by investing is not as large as you may think. Let's assume that by investing, you can make a market return of 10%. However, these are future cash flows, so let's discount this for inflation to a \"\"real\"\" 8% return. Then let's assume that after fees and taxes this would be a 7% real after-tax return. You also have to remember that this money is at risk in the market and may not get this return in some years. Assuming that your friend's average tax rate on earned income is 25%, this means that he'd need to earn $400 pre-tax to pay the after-tax payment of $300. So this is a 4% risk-free return after tax compared to a 7% average after tax return from the market, but one where the return is at risk. The equivalent after-tax risk-free return from the market (think T-Bills) is much lower than 7%. You are also reducing risk by paying the car loan off first in a few other ways, which is a great way to increase peace of mind. First, since cars decline in value over time, you are minimizing the possibility that you will eventually end up \"\"under water\"\" on the loan, where the loan balance is greater than the value of the car. This also gives you more flexibility in terms of being able to sell the car at any point if desired. Additionally, if the car breaks down and must be replaced, you would not need to continue making payments on the old loan, of if your friend loses his job, he would own the car outright and would not need to make payments. Finally, ideally you would only be investing in the market when you intend to leave the money there for 5+ years. Otherwise, you might need to pull money out of the market at a bad time. Remember, annual market returns vary quite a bit, but over 5-10 year periods, they are much more stable. Unfortunately, most people don't keep cars 5-10+ years, so you are likely to need the money back for another car more frequently than this. If you are pulling money out of the market every 5-10 years, you are more likely to need to pull money out at a bad time. 3) Killing off the \"\"buy now, pay later\"\" mindset will result in long-term financial benefits. Stop paying interest on things that go down in value. Save up and buy them outright, and invest the extra money into things that generate income/dividends. This is a good long-term habit to have. People also tend to be more prudent when considering the total cost of a purchase rather than just the monthly payment because it \"\"feels\"\" like more money when you buy outright. As a gut check for whether this is a good idea, here is an example that Dave Ramsey likes to use: Suppose that your friend did not have the emergency fund, and also did not have the car loan and owned the car outright. In that case, would your friend take out a title loan on the car in order to have an emergency fund? I think that a lot of people would say no, which may be a good indicator that it is wise to reduce the emergency fund in order to wipe out the debt, rather than maintaining both.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e06c59eea8e3f8455252689538847b3", "text": "\"For the mortgage, you're confusing cause and effect. Loans like mortgages generally have a very simple principle behind them: at any given time, the interest charged at that time is the product of the amount still owing and the interest rate. So for example on a mortgage of $100,000, at an interest rate of 5%, the interest charged for the first year would be $5,000. If you pay the interest plus another $20,000 after the first year, then in the second year the interest charge would be $4,000. This view is a bit of an over-simplification, but it gets the basic point across. [In practice you would actually make payments through the year so the actual balance that interest is charged on would vary. Different mortgages would also treat compounding slightly differently, e.g. the interest might be added to the mortgage balance daily or monthly.] So, it's natural that the interest charged on a mortgage reduces year-by-year as you pay off some of the mortgage. Mortgages are typically setup to have constant payments over the life of the mortgage (an \"\"amortisation schedule\"\"), calculated so that by the end of the planned mortgage term, you'll have paid off all of the principal. It's a straightforward effect of the way that interest works in general that these schedules incorporate higher interest payments early on in the mortgage, because that's the time when you owe more money. If you go for a 15-year mortgage, each payment will involve you paying off significantly more principal each time than with a 30-year mortgage for the same balance - because with a 15-year mortgage, you need to hit 0 after 15 years, not 30. So since you pay off the principal faster, you naturally pay less interest even when you just compare the first 15 years. In your case what you're talking about is paying off the mortgage using the 30-year payments for the first 15 years, and then suddenly paying off the remaining principal with a lump sum. But when you do that, overall you're still paying off principal later than if it had been a 15-year mortgage to begin with, so you should be charged more interest, because what you've done is not the same as having a 15-year mortgage. You still will save the rest of the interest on the remaining 15 years of the term, unless there are pre-payment penalties. For the car loan I'm not sure what is happening. Perhaps it's the same situation and you just misunderstood how it was explained. Or maybe it's setup with significant pre-payment penalties so you genuinely don't save anything by paying early.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "400acd072aaf20b5a499893d218bb5d5", "text": "The car has value, but it is still a depreciating asset. You're paying far more to rent a space to park the car than you are to own and drive it if you look beyond the initial term of your loan. You could buy a space to keep the car, but at $225,000 for a permanent spot, renting is a much better deal. Would you travel home as frequently if you didn't have the fixed cost of a parking space rental giving you incentive to make the most of the car since you're paying for it either way? My additional question is whether the freedom to travel home on a whim is worth more than the financial freedom you would gain by investing the money for the long term. I don't think it's irresponsible if the short term freedom contributes significantly to your sense of well-being, but even if it isn't entirely sunk cost, the majority of it is. The only way you can really know whether it's worth it to you would be to park the car at home for a month or two to see if you can live without it. Fortunately you don't lose much money in this experiment, since you're only paying 1.9% interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67e35bdb72a7bf29c81b0b88865805c6", "text": "\"Neat points but with regards to your first point there is no car financing to \"\"pay off\"\" unless you take on debt. And few Americans have or can easily accumulate the cash in hand to buy a $15K-30K vehicle. Sure, you can definitely live without debt, but buying a home, a car or making other sizable purchases is not possible under such circumstances unless you make a greater than average salary and are remarkably frugal, including an affordable, tenable living situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb1921209412666e7f31f6fd05338c33", "text": "Since you've already maxed out your 401k and your IRA, if you wanted to invest more-- then it would either be in a brokerage account or a 529 (if you have kids/ intend on going back to school). As to investing versus paying off your loans -- the interest on them are small enough that it will depend on your preference. If you need the cash flow for investment purposes (ie if you are going to buy an investment property) then I would pay off the car loan first -- otherwise I would invest the money. Since you've already expressed that you wouldn't be too interested in paying the mortgage off early, I've left that off the table (I would prioritize car loan over mortgage for the cash flow reason) If you do open a brokerage account -- make sure you are minimizing your taxes by putting the 'right' type of assets in a tax advantaged account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "908bb1c1bfc0b6588872a25b38b982be", "text": "I think you are a little confused. If you have 10.000€ in cash for a car, but you decide instead to invest that money and take out a loan for the car at 2,75% interest, you would have to withdraw/sell 178€ each month from your investment to make your loan payment. If you made exactly 2,75% on your investment, you would be left with 0€ in your investment when the loan was paid off. If your investment did better than 2,75%, you would come out ahead, and if your investment did worse than 2,75%, you would have lost money on your decision. Having said all that, I don't recommend borrowing money to buy a car, especially if you have that amount of cash set aside for the car. Here are some of the reasons: Sometimes people feel better about spending large amounts of money if they can pay it off over time, rather than spending it all at once. They tell themselves that they will come out ahead with their investments, or they will be earning more later, or some other story to make themselves feel better about overspending. If getting the loan is allowing you to spend more money on a car than you would spend if you were paying cash, then you will not come out ahead by investing; you would be better off to spend a smaller amount of money now. I don't know where you are in the world, but where I come from, you cannot get a guaranteed investment that pays 2,75%. So there will be risk involved; if the next year is a bad one for your investment, then your investment losses combined with your withdrawals for your car payments could empty your investment before the car is paid off. Conversely, by skipping the 2,75% loan and paying cash for your car, you have essentially made a guaranteed 2,75% on this money, comparatively speaking. I don't know what the going rate is for car loans where you are, but often car dealers will give you a low loan rate in exchange for a higher sales price. As a result, you might think that you can easily invest and beat the loan rate, but it is a false comparison because you overpaid for the car.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a114c5d7d6bb11e7b8bd57b1e4ac961", "text": "\"This is a very complicated thing to try to do. There are many variables, and some will come down to personal taste and buying habits. First you need to look at each of the loans and find out two very important things. Some times you pay a huge penalty for paying off a loan early. Usually this is on larger loans (like your mortgage) but it's not on heard of in car loans. If there is a penalty for early re-payment, then just pay off on the schedule, or at least take that penalty into consideration. Another dirty trick that some banks do is force you to pay \"\"the interest first\"\" when making a early payment. Essentially this is a penalty that ensures you pay the \"\"full price\"\" of the loan and not a lessor amount because you borrowed for less time. The way it really works is complicated, but it's not usually to your benefit to pay these off early either. These usually show up on smaller loans, but better look for it anyway. Next up on the list you need to look at your long term goals and buying habits. When are you going to re-model your kitchen. You can get another loan on the equity of the house, it's much harder to get a loan on the equity of a car (even once the car is paid off). So, depending on your goals you may do better to pay extra into your mortgage, then paying off your other loans early. Also consider your credit score. A big part of it is amount of money remaining on credit lines/total credit lines. Paying of a loan will reduce your credit score (short term). It will also give you the ability to take out another loan (long term). Finally, consider simplification of debtors. If something goes wrong it's much easier to work with a single debtor, then three separate debtors. This could mean moving your car loans into your mortgage, even if it's at a higher interest rate, should the need arise. Should you need to do that you will need the equity in your home. Bonus Points: As others have stated, there are tax breaks for people with mortgages in some circumstances. You should consider those as well. Car loans usually require a different level of insurance. Make sure to count that as well. Taking these points into consideration, I would suggest, paying off the 2.54% car loan first, then putting the extra $419.61 into your mortgage to build up more equity, and leaving the 0% loan to run it's full course. You all ready \"\"paid for\"\" that loan, so might as well use it. Side note: If you can find a savings account or other investment platform with a decent enough interest rate, you would be better served putting the $419.61 there. A decent rate ROTH-IRA would work very nicely for this, as you would get tax deferment on that as well. Sadly it may be hard to find an account with a high enough interest rate to make it a more attractive option the paying off the mortgage early.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e401a8ff82d95f592eab06973e952461", "text": "While this question is old and I generally agree with the answers given I think there's another angle that needs a little illuminating: insurance. If you go with an 84 month loan your car will likely be worth less than the amount owed for substantially all of the entire 84 month loan period; this will be exacerbated if you put zero down and include the taxes and fees in the amount borrowed. Your lender will require you to carry full comprehensive/collision/liability coverage likely with a low maximum deductible. While the car is underwater it will probably also be a good idea to carry gap insurance because the last thing you want to do is write a check to your lender to shore up the loan to value deficit if the thing is totaled. These long term car loans (I've seen as high as 96 months) are a bear when it comes to depreciation and related insurance costs. There is more to this decision than the interest calculation. Obviously, if you had the cash at the front of this decision presumably you'll have the cash later to pay off the loan at your convenience. But while the loan is outstanding there are costs beyond interest to consider.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "774c77aa1f67de425eee606416932749", "text": "\"Can you elaborate? What other countries are you talking about? It's definitely not uncommon for publicly funded \"\"healthcare\"\" (unsure why you put this in quotations) to go to corporate revenues / profits. Canada and Switzerland are two examples off the top of my head who use similar systems. Many other countries use a private sector component. \"\"The margins are huge\"\" largely because of government involvement. The bloated Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS) standardized payment scheme determines payments for services based on the resource costs estimated by a committee that meets in private (the Relative Value Update Committee). This impractical archaic value system has been adopted by 80% of private insurers, impairing their ability to drive down and offer more competitive prices.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
60a849e7a58644000a2471f06a438c90	Which practice to keep finances after getting married: joint, or separate?	[ { "docid": "5d5e4e1d4f9c4dd063b662a9cce9501c", "text": "\"If you ask ten different couples what they do, depending on a variety of factors, you'll get anywhere between two and ten different answers. One personal finance blogger that I read swears by the fact that he and his wife keep their finances totally separate. His wife has her own retirement account, he has his. His wife has her own checking and savings, he has his. They pay fifty-fifty for expenses and each buy their own \"\"toys\"\" from their own accounts. He views this as valuable for allowing them to have their own personal finance styles, as his wife is a very conservative investor and he is more generous. My spouse and I have mostly combined finances, and view all of our money as joint (even though there are a smattering of accounts between us with just one name on them as holdovers from before we were married). Almost all of our purchasing decisions except regular groceries are joint. I couldn't imagine it any other way. It leaves us both comfortable with our financial situation and forces us to be on the same page with regards to our lifestyle decisions. There's also the ideological view that since we believe marriage united us, we try to live that out. That's just us, though. We don't want to force it on others. Some couples find a balance between joint accounts and his and her fun money stashes. You might find yet another arrangement that works for you, such as the one you already described. What's going to be important is that you realize that all couples have the same six basic arguments, finances being one of them. The trick is in how you disagree. If you can respectfully and thoughtfully discuss your finances together to find the way that has the least friction for you, you're doing well. Some amount of friction is not just normal, it's almost guaranteed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d40b527cb773fb000584515b7841983", "text": "Echoing Justkt, different approaches will work for different couples. It also depends on your background, life experience, age, maturity.... Irrespective of the structure, any agreement must be based on a thorough understanding of the mechanism by which responsibility and accountability is apportioned. As in any financial relationship, when money is plentiful and covers all ends, then conflict hardly ever arises. Problems only turn up when money vanishes. Business contracts are written with a view to such conflicts and agreements within a marriage must be equatable and based on a shared understanding. So, don't worry too much about the structure. Think about thinkgs like the following: In other words, given that income between spouses is likely to be unbalanced, how do you manage this within a caring relationship so that neither feels like a charity case, a social worker, or dependent? There will not be one clear answer except that open and honest discussion on an ongoing bases can only serve to strengthen your relationship.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "785dfcde9313891b41c7a84d465d469b", "text": "I feel there are two types of answer: One: the financial. Suck all the emotion out of the situation, and treat the two individuals as individuals. If that works for the two of you, fantastic. Two: the philosophical. You're married, it's a union, so unify the funds. If that works for you, fantastic. Personally, my partner and I do the latter. The idea of separate pots and separate accounts and one mixed fund etc makes no sense to us. But that's us. The first step for you in deciding on an approach is to know yourselves as people - and everything else will follow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf25224291be04a013825b89ed54ef96", "text": "\"We've had everything in one pot almost from day one of marriage. The key ingredients to making that arrangement work is to communicate about the money, and realize that you're in it together. Everything one person does affects the other. Separating finances compartmentalizes the \"\"affecting one another\"\" part and makes it a little clearer perhaps, but I can also see it creating a sense of entitlement: \"\"This is my money.\"\" There should be a place for individual discretionary spending, of course, but I'm not sure that roping off that money is the best way to do it. It's less likely to be viable if there's one main breadwinner in the house. In our house, this is me. If we separated the finances like this, it would amount to giving my wife an allowance. Since she works harder at home than I do at work most of the time (she keeps the house, does meals and shopping, raises and schools our daughter, etc.) but just doesn't get paid for it, it would border on insult to her to treat the finances this way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a14496dd953240ec031e3d5820cca04a", "text": "My wife and I have a different arrangement. I like to track everything down to the transaction level. She doesn't want everything tracked. We have everything joint and I track everything except she has one credit card where I do not see the statements only the total. She is more comfortable, because she can buy things without me seeing the price for individual transactions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "258f4bd28d5244989f9826624bf5a627", "text": "Here are the main ways of doing this that I've encountered. I've met advocates of each. You might be interested in this set of articles: http://www.slate.com/id/2281885/ which looks at some different ways of doing this and the financial - and other - effects.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb83cd6d3176913addf1ddabb97b7f53", "text": "\"My wife and I maintain seperate accounts. We have the bills split between us so that certain bills are paid by one of us, and other bills by the other. This is not a perfect 50/50 split as we don't make the same amount of money, but comparable enough that neither feels like they're doing all the bills alone. Our investments are similar. That means we each have a pool of money that we can spend on toys or entertainment as we see fit without overspending. Once my bills are paid and my savings are paid for the month, if I want to go buy some DVDs and my wife wants to buy a new lens for the camera, we don't have to agree. We just use our own money and do it. For us that's led to minimal friction or arguments over what to spend money on, simply because we aren't using the same pool. Getting it work requires getting the split right AND having the mindset that the other person is just as entitled to spend their share of the money as you are to spend yours. It really helps to eliminate issues where she spent money that I expected to be able to spend before I could, which can happen in a joint account. (We have no joint accounts, only things like the mortgage are in both our names.) I've been told by more then one person that how we're doing it is \"\"wrong\"\", but it works a lot better for us then trying to combine finances ever did. I think it also helps that we're younger, and this seems far less common amongst older couples.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72beec33a9189a1d0a75501cea6e1376", "text": "\"This particular topic has probably been beaten to death already. But from the other comments, it seems that splitting finances them is a popular solution on this forum. I can see the individual benefit of this - makes it easy to go buy whatever you want. But it can hurt too. What if the situation changes, and you are no longer employed? Your setup will cause stress because now you are having to ask your spouse to pay for everything. If this works for you - congratulations. But, fights may ensue - divorce may follow. I would like to offer an alternative. In my situation, I bring home a paycheck, while my wife does not. In this case, each of us paying 50% would simply not work. Not to say my wife doesn't work - she works her butt off cleaning house, raising kids, etc. What we do is have any money that comes in go into a pot. We budget (Oh no, the B-word!) out regular expenses (lights, gas, rent). Anything that isn't allocated goes towards retirement savings (In the US, an IRA is an Individual Retirement Account), or towards a war-chest for big project (such as home ownership). And each of us gets the same \"\"blow money\"\" allowance every week that we can do with as we please. Keep in mind, using this mentality allows the possibility of me staying home at some point in the future when my wife goes back to her dream job. And there is no financial stress about \"\"whom owns what\"\", or \"\"who paid for what\"\". We own it because we decided to pay for it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "518790024d1d008884adf628880d51c1", "text": "I personally think that you should do whatever you believe works best. I am not married but when I get married I would also want to do what you are doing with having a joint account for certain things but also still having seperate accounts. I find this is a good approach so that neither of you is dependent finanically on the other one. Also, if you want to buy a present for your wife you would do it with your own money and not the joint account money. I hope my answer helps.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1d298504aedaf9c53964353fee7c3c41", "text": "\"Personally I would advise only buying what you can afford without borrowing money, even if it means living in a tent. Financially, that is the best move. If you are determined to borrow money to buy a house, the person with income should buy it as sole owner. Split ownership will create a nightmare if any problems develop in the relationship. Split ownership has the advantage that it doubles the tax-free appreciation deduction from $250,000 to $500,000, but in your case my sense is that that is not a sufficient reason to risk dual ownership. Do not charge your \"\"partner\"\" rent. That is crazy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69f20bd44d5ef7300d1080dd2bf9ccce", "text": "\"There are different approaches, but here is what we do and what I recommend. Now that you are officially a married couple, open a joint bank account, and eliminate your individual accounts. There are several reasons for this. Having a joint account promotes unity and teamwork. When you only have a joint account, you do not have \"\"your income\"\" and \"\"her income,\"\" or \"\"your expenses\"\" and \"\"her expenses.\"\" You work together in everything. You discuss your goals and set your household budget together. If one of you makes more money than the other, that person is no longer \"\"worth more,\"\" because your incomes are pooled together. If one person with a higher income has more in their account than the other person does, it can lead to envy, which you do not want in your marriage. Having a joint account is more efficient and makes more sense. With separate accounts, who pays the rent/mortgage? Who pays the utilities, or buys the food? If you have separate accounts, it takes a lot of work to worry about what is \"\"fair\"\" when deciding how to divide up the expenses. With a single household budget and a joint account, you decide together what the household expenses are, and they get paid from one account. If one of you has debt, you both have debt. You work together to get it paid off and strengthen your financial situation in the process. Having a joint account forces you to discuss your finances together. Working toward common financial goals together is crucial in a strong marriage, but if you maintain your separate accounts, you might be tempted to put off these discussions until you are forced to by life circumstances. It is better to work together from the start, and joining your finances facilitates that. You are intending your marriage to last. Live your financial life like you believe that you are a team for life. If you live in a community property state, separate accounts are a fiction anyway; everything is treated as if it was pooled together in the event of a divorce. I understand that if you are used to having your own money, it can be difficult to give up that sole control over your income, but in my opinion, it is worth it. You will certainly hear of examples from couples who maintain separate accounts and make it work. In my humble opinion, combining your finances completely is easier to do right.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f320b7a4dd6e73f41791713408ae9961", "text": "Obviously, there are many approaches. I’ll describe what we do and why we think it is successful. I have seen many couples having disagreements and even divorce over money; it seems that this is a typical reason to fight and sometimes fight badly. The realization is that different people have different preferences what to spend their money on, and if you are not rich, it continuously leads to disagreements - ‘did you really need another pair of shoes?’, etc. Our solution is a weekly allowance. First, all our money goes into one pot and is considered equal. Many couples find that a difficult step, but I never thought twice about it - I trust my spouse, and I share my life with her, so why not my money? From this, we agree on an ‘allowance’ that is used to cover any non-common cost; this includes all clothing, dining out, buying things, etc. The amount was chosen to match about what we spent for those things anyway, and then adjusted annually. The main point is that there is no critique allowed about what this is spent on - you can blow it all on shoes, or buy books, or wine and dine, or gamble it away, whatever. We are doing this since 23 years now, and we are very happy with the results; we never have financial ‘fights’ anymore. Disadvantages are the effort - you need to keep track of it somehow. Either you use a separate credit card, or hand it out in cash, or have a complete accounting (I do the latter, because I want to). Regarding all other spend, we use the accounting to plan ahead for at least a year on all cost and income that are expected, and that shows us the available cash flow and where it might get tight. It also shows you where the money goes, and where you could cut if cutting is needed (or wanted). Again, there is some effort in collecting the data, but it is worth it (for us).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "701e8af5fd8da73baf91d54053149cb0", "text": "In Ontario, common law marriage requires 3 years of cohabitation, and doesn't give rights to property (which remains separate). I'd say in your situation you can still file as single, but I'd suggest asking your tax accountant to be sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f9ba9aa9426ce230ecdcf7d11dfdf82", "text": "If it makes your finances easier, why not? My wife and I had his/hers/our since before we were married. I also have an account to handle transactions for my rental property, and one extra for PayPal use. I was paranoid to give out a checking account number with authorization for a third party to debit it, so that account has a couple hundred dollars, maximum. All this is just to explain that your finances should be arranged to simplify your life and make you comfortable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a6ec7acfcc016deaeedb5070d157e0a", "text": "I won't answer in a detailed manner because most people at this site like answers with certain bias' on these questions, like pool resources always relative to which partner is asking. If you follow the above advice, you are hoping things work out. Great! What if they don't? It will be very messy. Unlike most of my peers, I did NOT follow the above advice and had a very clean exit with both of us feeling very good (and no lawyers got involved either; win-win for both of us with all the money we saved). One assumption people make is the person with the lowest income has the strictest limits. This is not always true; I grew up in poverty, but have a very high income and detest financial waste. I can live on about €12,000 a year and even though my partner made a little less, my partner liked to spend. Counter intuitive, right? I was supposed to be the spender because I had a large income, but I wasn't. Also, think about an example with food - sharing expenses. Is it fair for one partner to split whey protein if one partner consumes it, but the other doesn't (answer: in my view, no)? My advice based on your questions: Balance the frugal vs. spendthrift mentality rather than income ratios. If you're both frugal, then focus on income ratios - but one may be more frugal than the other and the thought of spending €300 a month on housing is just insane to a person like me, whereas to most it's too little. Are you both exactly the same with this mentality - and be honest? Common costs that you both agree on can be easily split 50-50 and you can often benefit from economies of scale (like internet, cell phone). Both of us feel very strongly about being financially independent and if possible we both don't want to take money from each other. This is so healthy for a relationship. My partner and I split and we both still really love each other. We're headed in different directions, but we did not want to end bitterly. What you wrote is part of why we ended so well; we both were very independent financially. Kids are going to be a challenge because they come with expenses that partners don't always agree on. What do you and her think of childcare, for instance? You really want to know all this upfront; again a frugal vs. spendthrift mindset could cause some big tensions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f7f94e3e875f0372c59f6f6d08ac30f", "text": "\"Before you are married, I recommend keeping your finances separate. However, once you are married, I recommend combining your finances completely. In my opinion, marriage works best when you work together as a team, a single unit. You no longer have \"\"his money\"\" and \"\"her money,\"\" or \"\"his income\"\" and \"\"her income.\"\" Nor is there \"\"his debt\"\" and \"\"her debt.\"\" There is only \"\"our money,\"\" \"\"our income,\"\" \"\"our debt,\"\" and \"\"our budget.\"\" Indeed, if you are the one with less debt, isn't it in your household's best interest to help eliminate your spouse's debt as fast as possible? If you are the one with more income/employment, how do you quantify the monetary value of the spouse who stays at home more and manages the household? You can't, and it is best not to try. Instead, pool together all income and expenses, and work together to meet common goals. To do this, open up a joint bank account and close your individual accounts. Meet on a regular basis to decide your household budget. If you do that, it doesn't matter who is responsible for the mechanics of paying the bills or balancing the budget. These tasks just get assigned to someone, just like any other household chore. Usually, one of you will be more financially minded than the other, and that person will take the lead in setting the budget, paying the bills, balancing the checkbook, etc. However, it is important that both people are aware of what is going on and have access to the financial information. In our house, I am the one who takes the lead on financial matters. I pay the bills (out of our joint accounts) and set the monthly budget using YNAB software. However, my wife has the ability to look at YNAB at any time to see the budget, and she can log into the bank website to see the transactions there as well. No secrets. To be clear, we each have a small amount of cash/fun money that we can spend without worrying about checking in with the spouse on every little thing. But this is a small percentage of our budget, and we talk to each other before spending any significant amount of money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02d85f7e04b21aed3be88ef5151f5718", "text": "Well the idea of 'good practice' is subjective so obviously there won't be an objectively correct answer. I suspect that whatever article you read was making this recommendation as a budgeting tool to physically isolate your reserve of cash from your spending account(s) as a means to keep spending in check. This is a common idea that I've heard often enough, though I don't think I am alone in believing that it's unnecessary except in the case of a habitual spender who cannot be trusted to stay within a budget. I suppose there is a very small argument to be made about security where if you use a bank account for daily spending and that account is somehow compromised, the short-term damage is limited. In the end, I would argue that if you're in control of spending and budgeting, have a single source of income that is from regular employment, and you use a credit card for most of your daily spending, there's no compelling reason to have more than one bank account. Some people have a checking and savings account simply for the psychological effect of separating their money, some couples have 3-4 accounts for income, personal spending, and savings, other people have separate accounts for business/self-employment funds, and a few people like having many accounts that act as hard limits for spending in different categories. Of course, the other submitted answer is correct in noting that the more accounts that you have, the more you are opening yourself up to accounting issues if funds don't transfer the way you expect them to (assuming you're emptying the accounts often). Some banks are more lenient with this, however, and may offer you the option to freely 'overdraft' by pulling funding from another pre-designated account that you also hold at the same bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b73096242570bd775be7490170df556f", "text": "There would be no point to claim the gift exemption because a gift from a spouse that you file jointly with wouldn't be considered income. It would be the same as if you moved money from one bank account to another.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "101bd8af9cec549d6f124020231f8ebe", "text": "\"These sort of issues in structuring your personal finances relative to expenses can get complicated quickly, as your example demonstrates. I would recommend a solution that reduces duplication as much as possible- and depending on what information you're interested in tracking you could set it up in very different ways. One solution would be to create virtual sub accounts of your assets, and to record the source of money rather than the destination. Thus, when you do an expense report, you can limit on the \"\"his\"\" or \"\"hers\"\" asset accounts, and see only the expenses which pertain to those accounts (likewise for liabilities/credit cards). If, on the other hand, you're more interested in a running sum of expenses- rather than create \"\"Me\"\" and \"\"Spouse\"\" accounts at every leaf of the expense tree, it would make much more sense to create top level accounts for Expenses:His:etc and Expenses:Hers:etc. Using this model, you could create only the sub expense accounts that apply for each of your spending (with matching account structures for common accounts).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a898839170eac251d76c0ad96338106", "text": "Being new does not allow me yet to vote on your question, but what a good question it is. We share our opinion in separating finances in our very well going mariage. Currently I have found a sort of okay solution in two websites. These are http://www.yunoo.nl and http://www.moneytrackin.com/. You can actually tag spendings with multiple tags. I don't like the idea that the data is on a remote server, but since I have not found a proper local software solution, I just naively trust their promise that your data is save. Then again our financial situation is not that special.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ab2b7a9ead93dbd14f80545351f29f7", "text": "The basis of the home is the cost of land and material. That's it. Your time isn't added to basis. No different than if you spend 1000 hours in a soup kitchen. You deduct miles for your car and expenses you can document but you can't deduct your time. Over 2 years, you could have a gain up to $500K per married couple and pay no tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "857caa5f04ace57403694601f1826c25", "text": "\"First, filing status. If you and your wife are legally married, you should be filing your tax returns as married, either jointly or separately. In the US, \"\"head of household\"\" has a specific meaning and is for unmarried people who are supporting one or more relatives, per the IRS. If you are working full-time and your wife is not, then likely you will file a joint return, including all your income and all the expenses for your wife's business. So yes, the losses in her business will offset your income. Depending on how complex things are, you may want to hire a professional to help with your taxes. The rules for what can and cannot be deducted as a business expense can be opaque.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71789ebecce6528edd26dec2e904e972", "text": "HSAs are very similar to IRAs. Any investment returns grow tax-deferred and once you reach age 59 1/2 65, you can withdraw the funds for any purpose (subject to ordinary income tax), just like a traditional IRA. If you can afford to do so, I would recommend you to pay medical expenses out-of-pocket and let the funds in your HSA accumulate and grow. In general, the best way to allocate your funds is in the following order: Contribute to a 401(k) if your employer matches funds at a substantial rate Pay off high-interest debt (8% of more in current environment in 2011) Contribute to an IRA (traditional or Roth) Contribute to an HSA Contribute to a 401(k) without the benefit of employer matching One advantage of HSAs versus IRAs is that you don't have to have earned income (salary or self-employment income) in order to contribute. If you derive income solely from rents, interest or dividends, you can contribute the maximum amount ($3,050 for individuals in 2011) and get a full deduction from your income (Of course, you will need to maintain a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify). One downside of HSAs is the lack of competitively priced providers. Wells Fargo offers HSAs for free, but only allows you to keep your funds in cash, earning a very measly interest rate, or invest them in rather mediocre and expensive Wells Fargo mutual funds. Vanguard, known for its low-fee investment options, provides HSAs through a partner company, but the account maintenance charges are still quite high. Overall, HSAs are a worthwhile option as part of your investment plan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6a8f0229200cd6d0b5fe3f5feedd4dc", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-06/are-low-interest-rates-bad-for-growth) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) *** > James Chessen, the chief economist of the American Bankers&#039; Association, said in a June 5 interview, &quot;Interest rates have been too low for too long. It has created a problem for banks.&quot; The Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents smaller U.S. banks, believes that &quot;Higher interest rates would be a net plus for the community banking sector that would help them extend more credit,&quot; according to spokesman Paul Merski. > Officials at the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are sensitive to the side effects of extremely low or even subzero interest rates. > In a May 24 speech in Madrid, ECB President Mario Draghi acknowledged that low policy rates &quot;May compress banks&#039; net interest margins and thus exert pressure on their profitability.&quot; But he said that ECB researchers found that taking into account offsetting beneficial effects, &quot;The overall impact of our measures on bank profitability was positive.\"\" * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fodm5/is_the_world_overdoing_low_interest_rates/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~138044 tl;drs so far.\"\") \| [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) \| [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") \| Top* keywords: bank^#1 rate^#2 interest^#3 Low^#4 Calomiris^#5\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
89815ca10cba84b003fab778e029bec5	Avoiding Capital Gains Long Term	[ { "docid": "0b631aebd88b85b7ad0afe37b73654d3", "text": "Yes, you could avoid capital gains tax altogether, however, capital gains are used in determining your tax bracket even though they are not taxed at that rate. This would only work in situations where your total capital gains and ordinary income kept you in the 0% longterm capital gains bracket. You can't realize a million dollars in capital gains and have no tax burden due to lack of ordinary income. You can potentially save some money by realizing capital gains strategically. Giving up income in an attempt to save on taxes rarely makes sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88ad101812c46ae30dfe93a1ece147d7", "text": "\"It's correct. Be sure of your personal opportunity cost and not that you're letting the tax tail wag the dog just to score \"\"tax free\"\". Your upside is $3,700 (single) or $7,000 (married) in taxes saved until you're out of the 0% zone. Is that worth not receiving an income? Even if your savings are such that you don't need to work for income for a fiscal year, how would this affect the rest of your career and lifetime total earning prospects? Now, maybe: Otherwise, I'd hope you have solid contacts in your network who won't be fazed by a resume gap and be delighted to have a position open for you in 2019 (and won't give you the \"\"mother returning to the workforce\"\" treatment in salary negotiations).\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b58965eac1ac22be6c97704ca003a1f0", "text": "My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3cc2326e8fa93452b5c41bfe54f0584", "text": "Right now, the unrealized appreciation of Vanguard Tax-Managed Small-Cap Fund Admiral Shares is 28.4% of NAV. As long as the fund delivers decent returns over the long term, is there anything stopping this amount from ballooning to, say, 90% fifty years hence? I'd have a heck of a time imagining how this grows to that high a number realistically. The inflows and outflows of the fund are a bigger question along with what kinds of changes are there to capital gains that may make the fund try to hold onto the stocks longer and minimize the tax burden. If this happens, won't new investors be scared away by the prospect of owing taxes on these gains? For example, a financial crisis or a superior new investment technology could lead investors to dump their shares of tax-managed index funds, triggering enormous capital-gains distributions. And if new investors are scared away, won't the fund be forced to sell its assets to cover redemptions (even if there is no disruptive event), leading to larger capital-gains distributions than in the past? Possibly but you have more than a few assumptions in this to my mind that I wonder how well are you estimating the probability of this happening. Finally, do ETFs avoid this problem (assuming it is a problem)? Yes, ETFs have creation and redemption units that allow for in-kind transactions and thus there isn't a selling of the stock. However, if one wants to pull out various unlikely scenarios then there is the potential of the market being shut down for an extended period of time that would prevent one from selling shares of the ETF that may or may not be as applicable as open-end fund shares. I would however suggest researching if there are hybrid funds that mix open-end fund shares with ETF shares which could be an alternative here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6d3a46eb56646f68888503be0d54000", "text": "Selling one fund and buying another will incur capital gains tax on the sale for the amount of the gain. I'm not aware of any sort of exemption available due to you moving out of the country. However, long-term capital gains for low-tax-bracket taxpayers is 0%. As long as your total income including the gains fits within the 15% regular tax bracket, you don't pay any long-term capital gains. Options for you that I see to avoid taxes are: Note that even if you do sell it all, it's only the amount of gains that would take your income over the 15% normal tax bracket that would be taxed at the long-term rate of 15%, which may not end up being that much of a tax hit. It may be worth calculating just how bad it would be based on your actual income. Also note that all I'm saying here is for US federal income taxes. The state you most recently lived in may still charge taxes if you're still considered a resident there in some fashion, and I don't know if your new home's government may try to take a cut as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeb476540810014f56d055b895dba62b", "text": "In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "395e4a466026a14fb6261c61f25969b5", "text": "\"A lot of people have already explained that your assumptions are the issue, but I'll throw in my 2¢. There are a lot of people who do the opposite of long term investing. It's called high frequency trading. I'd recommend reading the Wikipedia article for more info, but very basically, high frequency traders use programs to determine which stocks to buy and which ones to sell. An example program might be \"\"buy if the stock is increasing and sell if I've held it more than 1 second.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ec4040c3ac8334ab36c650435360cd4", "text": "\"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, \"\"It depends.\"\" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8615e9a68e1874e10f12d06764d16009", "text": "Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down. In fact all stocks go down at some times. The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down. So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification). If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods. So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack. The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60a3de3c4b6ba916c9d838b8a08d250c", "text": "\"When a question is phrased this way, i.e. \"\"for tax purposes\"\" I'm compelled to advise - Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. In theory, one can create a loss, up to the $3K, and take it against ordinary income. When sold, the gains may be long term and be at a lower rate. In reality, if you are out of the stock for the required 30 days, it will shoot up in price. If you double up, as LittleAdv correctly offers, it will drop over the 30 days and negate any benefit. The investing dog's water bowl is half full.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "398402f51ec457500408822627b1c4f2", "text": "Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25faeedfce4fc9db142bcf1af0d49817", "text": "Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.158K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97e65970f20cad08d3fe6ee5ebb651e8", "text": "Do not use a stop loss order as a long-term investor. The arguments in favor of stop losses being presented by a few users here rely on a faulty premise, namely, that there is some kind of formula that will let you set your stop such that it won't trigger on day-to-day fluctuations but will trigger in time to protect you from a significant loss in a serious market downturn. No such formula exists. No matter where you set your stop, it is as likely to dump you from your investment just before it begins climbing again as it is to shield you from continued losses. Each time that happens, you will have sold low and bought high, incurring trading fees into the bargain. It is very unlikely that the losses you avoid in a bear market (remember, you still incur the loss up until your stop is hit; it's only the losses after that that you avoid) will make up the costs of false alarms. On top of that, once you have stopped out of your first investment choice, then what? Will you reinvest in some other stock or fund? If those investments didn't look good to you when you first set up your asset allocation, then why should they look any better now, just because your primary investment has dropped by some arbitrary[] amount? Will you park the money in cash while you wait for prices to bottom out? The market bottom is only apparent in retrospect. There is no formula for calling it in real time. Perhaps stop loss orders have their uses in active trading strategies, or maybe they're just chrome that trading platforms use to attract customers. Either way, using them on long-term investments will just cost you money in the long run. Forget the fancy order types, and manage your risk through your asset allocation. The overwhelming likelihood is that you will get better performance, and you will spend less time worrying about your investments to boot. [] Why are the stop levels recommended by the formulae invariably multiples of 5%? Do the market gods have a thing for round numbers?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c843dc9c5c342b9205e36ba2aa3344f", "text": "\"You should check with your broker for details, but you can generally specify which \"\"lot\"\" you are selling. where I've seen it, that's done by concurrently sending a \"\"letter of instruction\"\" documenting your choice of lot concurrent with the sale, but different brokers may handle this differently. I would think this should work for the case that you describe. (In addition, the default rule used by your broker is \"\"probably\"\" first-in-first-out, which will do what you want here.) Note that this may come into play even in a margin account to the extent that you might want to specify a lot in order to obtain (or set yourself up for later benefit of) favorable tax treatment under the long-term capital gains rules\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b650fc4e0e907668b3089ab88e802163", "text": "Equal sized gains and losses in alternating years would lead to an unjust positive tax. On the contrary. If I can take my gains at the long term rate (15%) in even years, but take losses in odd years, up to $3000, or let them offset short term gains at ordinary rate, I've just gamed the system. What is the purpose of the wash sale rule? Respectfully, we here can do a fine job of explaining how a bit of tax code works. And we can suggest the implication of those code bits. But, I suspect that it's not easy to explain the history of particular rules. For wash sale, the simple intent is to not let someone take a loss without actually selling the stock for a time. You'd be right to say the +/- 30 days is arbitrary. I'd ask you to keep 2 things in mind if you continue to frequent this board -", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49f29b55b33e9105340e11bfb78539e9", "text": "You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates. If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer. In a comment, you proposed: Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20[number of shares]*([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true. And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs. Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs. So this isn't exactly a free lunch either. But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held. Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever. Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax. This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54e0ff2c5558fea04519a7243a6722a4", "text": "Tax questions require that you specify a jurisdiction. Assuming that this is the US, you owe Federal income tax (at the special long-term capital gains tax rate) on the net long-term capital gains (total long-term capital gains minus total long-term capital losses) and so, yes, if these two were your only transactions involving long-term holdings, you would pay long-term capital gains tax on $3000-$50 = $2950. Many States in the US don't tax long-term capital gains at special rates the way the Federal Government does, but you still pay taxes on the net long-term capital gains. I suspect that other countries have similar rules.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b5a87051507b73e6905f18b7d139f5dd	Should I pay cash or prefer a 0% interest loan for home furnishings?	[ { "docid": "7c7cb28945526fa3c8277291b30bafa1", "text": "There are several issues with paying for furniture and appliances with 0% credit instead of paying with cash. When you pay with 0% credit, you might be tempted to spend more on something than you would have if you paid with cash, because it feels like free money, and you've justified in your mind that the extra you earn will help pay for the more expensive item. Businesses don't offer 0% credit for free, and they don't lose money on the deal. When you shop at a store that offers 0% credit, you are generally overpaying for the item. By shopping at a store that does not offer 0% credit, you might be able to get a better price. Your savings account is likely earning very little interest. You might invest the money you intend for your purchases in a place that gets better returns, but in most of these places the returns are not guaranteed, and you might not do as well as you think. 0% loans typically come with lots of conditions that have very heavy penalties and interest rate hikes for late payments. You can mitigate this risk by setting up automatic payments, but things can still go wrong. Your bank might change your account number, making the automated payment fail. As you mentioned, you might also forget to put the proper amount of money in the account. A single mistake can negate all of the tiny gains you are trying to achieve. Ultimately, the decision is yours, of course, but in my opinion, there is very, very little to gain with buying something on 0% credit when you could be paying cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dd247eaa2f2e103dfc2894c54edaa6e", "text": "Read the terms and conditions very carefully. Many zero percent deals have a requirement that you pay back at a certain date, and if you don't, you'll have to pay some enormous percentage. Nobody will remind you of the date, because the lender has the secret hope that you will forget.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6f9d20330413449160f7a9aee60bbfa", "text": "If you can set up automatic payments (like direct debits in the UK) and you can be disciplined enough to not spend the money on something else then this can be a good way of building/improving your credit rating. Banks / Lenders like it when they see you have previously taken, and repaid, credit. This can help you get better finance deals etc. in the future. Update: as noted in the comments France had a different financial system and people do not have credit ratings, so this point isn't valid in France", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38f7e76038c4ca35c5a3dfcd210ed4b8", "text": "A friend recently bought an 800€ TV on 0% financing. Sounded like a sensible thing to do. Why pay 800 when you can pay 80pm for 10 months? It took 30mins to set up the 'loan'. She had to sign all kinds of documents, giving away much personal information (age, employment info, income, email address etc). She now has a financial relationship with an institution which has nothing to do with the item purchased. She is bombarded with all kinds of financial offerings. She regrets taking out the finance. She had the money. The hassle and the unwanted links to banks make the deal unattractive. Perhaps she should have tried to make a cash deal...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12262c326568149698533a3c185be27c", "text": "If a shop offers 0% interest for purchase, someone is paying for it. e.g., If you buy a $X item at 0% interest for 12 months, you should be able to negotiate a lower cash price for that purchase. If the store is paying 3% to the lender, then techincally, you should be able to bring the price down by at least 2% to 3% if you pay cash upfront. I'm not sure how it works in other countries or other purchases, but I negotiated my car purchase for the dealer's low interest rate deal, and then re-negotiated with my preapproved loan. Saved a good chunk on that final price!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd508c9d6eff76049f2b5331cef55715", "text": "Two cases: You take the credit and reinvest the cash equivalent (be it a savings account or otherwise), yielding you the x% at virtually zero risk. Unless of course you consider possibility of your own negligence a risk (in case of missed payments, etc.). You pay by cash and have the peace of mind at the cost of that x%. The ultimate decision depends on which you value more - the $ you get from x%, or the peace of mind.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adf0bbb6ba28dce5c3612f753bb82f4b", "text": "Remember that due to inflation you are paying back the loan with cheaper dollars in the future. If there are no gimmicks in the loan like early payment penalties, or must pay by a certain date or that the credit was for a store that sold the products at a higher price than you could get elsewhere then you are not just getting free money they are paying you to take the money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bba82847005e0638501d794ffa3685d", "text": "\"0% furniture loans can hurt your credit rating. I was told by a bank mortgage officer (sorry I can't cite a document) that credit rating algorithms consider \"\"consumer\"\" loans like 0% appliance loans and certain store-specific credit cards as a negative factor, lowering your overall score. The rationalization given was that that taking that type of credit is an indicator that you have zero cash reserves. The actual algorithms are proprietary, so I don't know how you could verify this. If true, it runs counter to the conventional wisdom that getting credit and then paying it off builds your credit score.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ddb78dc9cdfb2bd976739394f98fcf2", "text": "There are lots of good points here already, but something that hasn't been mentioned yet is what would happen if the purchased items break or are somehow defective? Depending on the warranty and how trustworthy the company is, there could be an advantage to not having fully paid for the item yet when a defect is discovered, as it might incentivize the company to be more attentive to your warranty claim, since they are faced with knowing that you could stop making payments if they don't act in a timely manner. Note I'm not suggesting you stop making payments in this case, just that companies (and banks) are oftentimes more willing to work with you when you owe them money.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d35e1fc618a53d97711ebaffbdec7387", "text": "\"It's rarely advisable to pay interest for something you can afford with cash. Just because you have no credit or loan history doesn't mean you aren't credit worthy. When applying for loans or credit, the lending institutions look at your credit report, not just your credit score. There are lots of things that show up on the reports they receive including (but not limited to): Right now, so many people are focused on their credit score, they're taking on unnecessary debt and potentially losing money in the long run. Yes, having a higher credit score will ultimately be beneficial, but your score will start growing naturally as you live your life. Unless of course you can and do pay for everything with cash. The concept of monitoring your score and striving to get it as high as possible is being shoved down our throats by advertisers at the moment. Don't fall for it. Rather than taking out a loan, which will cost you money in interest and actually show up as a closed account once it's paid off, you might be better served by applying for a credit card and using it sparingly just to start getting that credit history together. (Add usual \"\"don't spend more than you can pay back\"\" mantra here). Get a card with no annual fee and maybe some cash back options, and use it as the auto-payment for a utility if possible. You build credit history, increase your score, and it doesn't cost you any more than you'd be paying anyways. With regards to the investment question: With little to no credit history, you're not going to be approved for a loan with a low enough interest rate anyways. Think double digits. With a co-signer, you'll get a better rate, but then you need a co-signer. I don't know the exact math, but in today's market I'd say you'd need a loan interest rate of 2% or lower for investing to be worth thinking about. I believe this answer helps clarify the loan to invest math: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/26193/30798\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "086c40bd3fcff9179d9481f38223059b", "text": "The crucial question not addressed by other answers is your ability to repay the debt. Borrowing is always about leverage, and leverage is always about risk. In the home improvement loan case, default comes with dire consequences-- to extinguish the debt you might have to sell your home. With a stable job, reliable income, and sufficient cash flow (and, of course, comfort that the project will yield benefits you're happy to pay for), then the clear answer is, go ahead and borrow. But if you work in a highly cyclical industry, have very little cash saved, or for whatever other reason are uncertain about your future ability to pay, then don't borrow. Save until you are more comfortable you can handle the loan. That doesn't necessarily mean save ALL the money; just save enough that you are highly confident in your ability to pay whatever you borrow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d39986d50b0e63031806e14e0e0c04a4", "text": "\"Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (\"\"the most expensive money\"\"). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally \"\"free money\"\" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans. Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same. In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called \"\"snowballing\"\", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week. Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress. It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target. Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt. Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments. You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance. Paying off your car... so your car's paid off. If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan. But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency. This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan. Many modern banks actually use \"\"mortgage offsetting\"\" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted \"\"as if\"\" you'd paid it off your mortgage. So you get the benefit without the commitment. The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement. And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars. But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ce6e234bcd2d422faa5923cfb84c98f", "text": "use all cash I have This is a horrible idea. Any problem requiring money will turn into a really big problem. For example any bigger problem with newly bought 2 room flat (emergency repair, damage by renter) will both reduce income and be impossible to fix until some money is secured. Whatever contribution higher than minimal depends on many factors (risks, alternative sources of money, loan conditions etc). But spending all cash and living paycheck to paycheck is unlikely to be worth it. it can be assumed, that I will always be able to find someone to rent my flats This is a very optimistic assumption.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "479c8b6628202b3947d4a2c9b7c84bbf", "text": "\"Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with \"\"buy the home now with a mortgage\"\" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be890938a706654068b3fe6ac2d26e54", "text": "\"It depends on your situation. If your floor is broken, fix it. If you don't have $1,000 on hand, spend appropriately. It seems silly to be doing ROI calculations on the potential impact on resale value. It's sillier to blow money frivolously, whether you do so with cash or credit. I'm assuming that if you have a broken linoleum floor that the kitchen isn't new, so it doesn't make sense to install your \"\"dream tile\"\" into the kitchen. Skip the imported travertine or wood and buy some nice linoleum and hire a handyman to put it in or install it yourself. You can probably do this for $500-700. If you have longer term plans for the kitchen, get them on paper and figure out what exactly you want to do and when you'll be able to do it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33a18214048d00ec5c14fc9655f16b82", "text": "If you are an entrepreneur, and you are looking forward to strike on your own ( the very definition of entrepreneur) then I suggest that you don't invest in anything except your business and yourself. You will need all the money you have when you launch your business. There will be times when your revenue won't be able to cover your living costs, and that's when you need your cash. At that point of time, do you really want to have your cash tie up in stock market/property? Some more, instead of diverting your attention to learn how the stock market/property works, focus on your business. You will find that the reward is much, much greater. The annual stock market return is 7% to 15%. But the return from entrepreneurship can be many times higher than that. So make sure you go for the bigger prize, not the smaller gains. It's only when your business no longer requires your capital then you can try to find other means of investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5f4ab2a01fac462e9288e0ff4883245", "text": "I am sorry to say, you are asking the wrong question. If I own a rental that I bought with cash, I have zero mortgage. The guy I sell it to uses a hard money lender (charging a high rate) and finances 100%. All of this means nothing to the prospective tenant. In general, one would look at the rent to buy ratio in the area, and decide whether homes are selling for a price that makes it profitable to buy and then rent out. In your situation, I understand you are looking to decide on a rent based on your costs. That ship has sailed. You own already. You need to look in the area and find out what your house will rent for. And that number will tell you whether you can afford to treat it as a rental or would be better off selling. Keep in mind - you don't list a country, but if you are in US, part of a rental property is that you 'must' depreciate it each year. This is a tax thing. You reduce your cost basis each year and that amount is a loss against income from the rental or might be used against your ordinary income. But, when you sell, your basis is lower by this amount and you will be taxed on the difference from your basis to the sale price. Edit: After reading OP's updated question, let me answer this way. There are experts who suggest that a rental property should have a high enough rent so that 50% of rent covers expenses. This doesn't include the mortgage. e.g. $1500 rent, $750 goes to taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, etc. the remaining $750 can be applied to the mortgage, and what remains is cash profit. No one can give you more than a vague idea of what to look for, because you haven't shared the numbers. What are your taxes? Insurance? Annual costs for landscaping/snow plowing? Then take every item that has a limited life, and divide the cost by its lifetime. e.g. $12,000 roof over 20 years is $600. Do this for painting, and every appliance. Then allow a 10% vacancy rate. If you cover all of this and the mortgage, it may be worth keeping. Since you have zero equity, time is on your side, the price may rise, and hopefully, the monthly payments chip away at the loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c90f2d1813c8419a415b3cfaf3100007", "text": "If you are very sure, say 90%, that you'll pay the zero percent card off before paying interest, that would be my choice. Less certainty than that, I think the 6.8% over a longer term is less of a cash flow issue, and you can still pay it in full upon getting the job bonus.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adca10f72ab03c9efe930221c39dcd68", "text": "As a general rule of thumb, and assuming you have a choice, my advice is to pay cash for things things that depreciate, expenses, and consumables. Consider credit (even if you have cash) for things that will appreciate in value or generate cash flow. That is, use credit as leverage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b7a6bdc360c99bedfb60ace81842d06", "text": "A loan with modest interest is better than paying by cash if there are better alternatives for investment. For example, suppose you are buying a house. Consider two extremes: a) you pay the house entirely by cash, b) the entire buy is financed by the bank. Historically, real (subtracting inflation) house prices (at least in the U.S.) have not risen at all in the long run, and investing all of your own capital in this way may not be optimal. Notice that we are looking at a situation where one is buying a house and living in it in any case. Rent savings are equal in cases a) and b). If instead you were buying a house not for yourself, but as a separate investment for renting out, then you would receive rent. In the case a), the real return on your capital will be zero, whereas in case b), you can invest the cash in e.g. the stock market and get, on average, 7% (the stock market has yielded a 7% real return annually including dividends) annually minus the bank's interest rate. If the interest is lower than 7%, it may be profitable to take the loan. Of course, the final decision depends on your risk preferences.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc3b63c81f1b304d930f8b0957c62695", "text": "In planning to buy a house, and sort out how to handle the costs of some initial renovations, I've been considering using Lowes and Home Depot credit cards (hopefully this will count differently than the typical credit cards I think you're referring to): http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?pn=Credit_Center&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 http://www.lowes.com/cd_Credit+Card+Accounts+from+Lowes_781778798_ You should definitely read the fine print first, as the interest rates can shoot up after the first 6 months if you don't pay the balance in full on some of them. Also, Lowes has a project card that gives you the 6 month no interest (only a minimum payment), and you don't have to pay off the full balance at the end. This one even has more reasonable rates, so this could be a good way to go.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46e0fd4a0513b1e04e20f5ec1819ed82", "text": "Sometimes I think it helps to think of the scenario in reverse. If you had a completely paid off car, would you take out a title loan (even at 0%) for a few months to put the cash in a low-interest savings account? For me, I think the risk of losing the car due to non-payment outweighs the tens of dollars I might earn.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2bbed915d44426de310febe8fe1942d", "text": "\"If you mortgage after the fact you will usually pay an extra .25% higher on the interest rate because a \"\"cash out\"\" refinance is treated as riskier than a new home purchase mortgage. You might save enough on the purchase price of the home with a cash offer to make that higher interest rate worth it, but in most cases, if you are planning to hold the loan for a long time, it's best to get that mortgage at the time of purchase. You might be able to get the same deal with an offer that says you will pay cash if there are any problems getting the loan approved.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f18fc365689652e6ace8938a416fef9d", "text": "\"In most cases of purchases the general advice is to save the money and then make the purchase. Paying cash for a car is recommended over paying credit for example. For a house, getting a mortgage is recommended. Says who? These rules of thumb hide the actual equations behind them; they should be understood as heuristics, not as the word of god. The Basics The basic idea is, if you pay for something upfront, you pay some fixed cost, call it X, where as with a loan you need to pay interest payments on X, say %I, as well as at least fixed payments P at timeframe T, resulting in some long term payment IX. Your Assumption To some, this obviously means upfront payments are better than interest payments, as by the time the loan is paid off, you will have paid more than X. This is a good rule of thumb (like Newtonian's equations) at low X, high %I, and moderate T, because all of that serves to make the end result IX > X. Counter Examples Are there circumstances where the opposite is true? Here's a simple but contrived one: you don't pay the full timeframe. Suppose you die, declare bankruptcy, move to another country, or any other event that reduces T in such a way that XI is less than X. This actually is a big concern for older debtors or those who contract terminal illnesses, as you can't squeeze those payments out of the dead. This is basically manipulating the whole concept. Let's try a less contrived example: suppose you can get a return higher than %I. I can currently get a loan at around %3 due to good credit, but index funds in the long run tend to pay %4-%5. Taking a loan and investing it may pay off, and would be better than waiting to have the money, even in some less than ideal markets. This is basically manipulating T to deal with IX. Even less contrived and very real world, suppose you know your cash flow will increase soon; a promotion, an inheritance, a good market return. It may be better to take the loan now, enjoy whatever product you get until that cash flows in, then pay it all off at once; the enjoyment of the product will make the slight additional interest worth it. This isn't so much manipulating any part of the equation, it's just you have different goals than the loan. Home Loan Analysis For long term mortgages, X is high, usually higher than a few years pay; it would be a large burden to save that money for most people. %I is also typically fairly low; P is directly related to %I, and the bank can't afford to raise payments too much, or people will rent instead, meaning P needs to be affordable. This does not apply in very expensive areas, which is why cities are often mostly renters. T is also extremely long; usually mortgages are for 15 or 30 years, though 10 year options are available. Even with these shorter terms, it's basically the longest term loan a human will ever take. This long term means there is plenty of time for the market to have a fluctuation and raise the investments current price above the remainder of the loan and interest accrued, allowing you to sell at a profit. As well, consider the opportunity cost; while saving money for a home, you still need a place to live. This additional cost is comparable to mortgage payments, meaning X has a hidden constant; the cost of renting. Often X + R > IX, making taking a loan a better choice than saving up. Conclusion \"\"The general advice\"\" is a good heuristic for most common human payments; we have relatively long life spans compared to most common payments, and the opportunity cost of not having most goods is relatively low. However, certain things have a high opportunity cost; if you can't talk to HR, you can't apply for jobs (phone), if you can't get to work, you can't eat (car), and if you have no where to live, it's hard to keep a job (house). For things with high opportunity costs, the interest payments are more than worth it.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d955c2cdbb5a9209baab141d3a24de95	What is the best asset allocation for a retirement portfolio, and why?	[ { "docid": "8e0cc6474e82e1d2d036cd295fc54b37", "text": "\"You're right, the asset allocation is one fundamental thing you want to get right in your portfolio. I agree 110%. If you really want to understand asset allocation, I suggest any and all of the following three books, all by the same author, William J. Bernstein. They are excellent – and yes I've read each. From a theory perspective, and being about asset allocation specifically, the Intelligent Asset Allocator is a good choice. Whereas, the next two books are more accessible and more complete, covering topics including investor psychology, history, financial products you can use to implement a strategy, etc. Got the time? Read them all. I finished reading his latest book, The Investor's Manifesto, two weeks ago. Here are some choice quotes from Chapter 3, \"\"The Nature of the Portfolio\"\", that address some of the points you've asked about. All emphasis below is mine. Page 74: The good news is [the asset allocation process] is not really that hard: The investor only makes two important decisions: Page 76: Rather, younger investors should own a higher portion of stocks because they have the ability to apply their regular savings to the markets at depressed prices. More precisely, young investors possess more \"\"human capital\"\" than financial capital; that is, their total future earnings dwarf their savings and investments. From a financial perspective, human capital looks like a bond whose coupons escalate with inflation. Page 78: The most important asset allocation decision is the overall stock/bind mix; start with age = bond allocation rule of thumb. [i.e. because the younger you are, you already have bond-like income from anticipated employment earnings; the older you get, the less bond-like income you have in your future, so buy more bonds in your portfolio.] He also mentions adjusting that with respect to one's risk tolerance. If you can't take the ups-and-downs of the market, adjust the stock portion down (up to 20% less); if you can stomach the risk without a problem, adjust the stock portion up (up to 20% more). Page 86: [in reference to a specific example where two assets that zig and zag are purchased in a 50/50 split and adjusted back to targets] This process, called \"\"rebalancing,\"\" provides the investor with an automatic buy-low/sell-high bias that over the long run usually – but not always – improves returns. Page 87: The essence of portfolio construction is the combination of asset classes that move in different directions at least some of the time. Finally, this gem on pages 88 and 89: Is there a way of scientifically picking the very best future allocation, which offers the maximum return for the minimum risk? No, but people still try. [... continues with description of Markowitz's \"\"mean-variance analysis\"\" technique...] It took investment professionals quite a while to realize that limitation of mean-variance analysis, and other \"\"black box\"\" techniques for allocating assets. I could go on quoting relevant pieces ... he even goes into much detail on constructing an asset allocation suitable for a large portfolio containing a variety of different stock asset classes, but I suggest you read the book :-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47949a3d96c655c0cb45eba95c6e912e", "text": "\"This turned out be a lot longer than I expected. So, here's the overview. Despite the presence of asset allocation calculators and what not, this is a subjective matter. Only you know how much risk you are willing to take. You seem to be aware of one rule of thumb, namely that with a longer investing horizon you can stand to take on more risk. However, how much risk you should take is subject to your own risk aversion. Honestly, the best way to answer your questions is to educate yourself about the individual topics. There are just too many variables to provide neat, concise answers to such a broad question. There are no easy ways around this. You should not blindly rely on the opinions of others, but rather use your own judgment to asses their advice. Some of the links I provide in the main text: S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns 10-year index fund returns The Motley Fool Risk aversion Disclaimer: These are the opinions of an enthusiastic amateur. Why should I invest 20% in domestic large cap and 10% in developing markets instead of 10% in domestic large cap and 20% in developing markets? Should I invest in REITs? Why or why not? Simply put, developing markets are very risky. Even if you have a long investment horizon, you should pace yourself and not take on too much risk. How much is \"\"too much\"\" is ultimately subjective. Specific to why 10% in developing vs 20% in large cap, it is probably because 10% seems like a reasonable amount of your total portfolio to gamble. Another way to look at this is to consider that 10% as gone, because it is invested in very risky markets. So, if you're willing to take a 20% haircut, then by all means do that. However, realize that you may be throwing 1/5 of your money out the window. Meanwhile, REITs can be quite risky as investing in the real estate market itself can be quite risky. One reason is that the assets are very much fixed in place and thus can not be liquidated in the same way as other assets. Thus, you are subject to the vicissitudes of a relatively small market. Another issue is the large capital outlays required for most commercial building projects, thus typically requiring quite a bit of credit and risk. Another way to put it: Donald Trump made his name in real estate, but it was (and still is) a very bumpy ride. Yet another way to put it: you have to build it before they will come and there is no guarantee that they will like what you built. What mutual funds or index funds should I investigate to implement these strategies? I would generally avoid actively managed mutual funds, due to the expenses. They can seriously eat into the returns. There is a reason that the most mutual funds compare themselves to the Lipper average instead of something like the S&P 500. All of those costs involved in managing a mutual fund (teams of people and trading costs) tend to weigh down on them quite heavily. As the Motley Fool expounded on years ago, if you can not do better than the S&P 500, you should save yourself the headaches and simply invest in an S&P 500 index fund. That said, depending on your skill (and luck) picking stocks (or even funds), you may very well have been able to beat the S&P 500 over the past 10 years. Of course, you may have also done a whole lot worse. This article discusses the performance of the S&P 500 over the past 60 years. As you can see, the past 10 years have been a very bumpy ride yielding in a negative return. Again, keep in mind that you could have done much worse with other investments. That site, Simple Stock Investing may be a good place to start educating yourself. I am not familiar with the site, so do not take this as an endorsement. A quick once-over of the material on the site leads me to believe that it may provide a good bit of information in readily digestible forms. The Motley Fool was a favorite site of mine in the past for the individual investor. However, they seem to have turned to the dark side, charging for much of their advice. That said, it may still be a good place to get started. You may also decide that it is worth paying for their advice. This blog post, though dated, compares some Vanguard index funds and is a light introduction into the contrarian view of investing. Simply put, this view holds that one should not be a lemming following the crowd, rather one should do the opposite of what everyone else is doing. One strong argument in favor of this view is the fact that as more people pile onto an investing strategy or into a particular market, the yields thin out and the risk of a correction (i.e. a downturn) increases. In the worst case, this leads to a bubble, which corrects itself suddenly (or \"\"pops\"\" thus the term \"\"bubble\"\") leading to quite a bit of pain for the unprepared participants. An unprepared participant is one who is not hedged properly. Basically, this means they were not invested in other markets/strategies that would increase in yield as a result of the event that caused the bubble to pop. Note that the recent housing bubble and resulting credit crunch beat quite heavily on the both the stock and bond markets. So, the easy hedge for stocks being bonds did not necessarily work out so well. This makes sense, as the housing bubble burst due to concerns over easy credit. Unfortunately, I don't have any good resources on hand that may provide starting points or discuss the various investing strategies. I must admit that I am turning my interests back to investing after a hiatus. As I stated, I used to really like the Motley Fool, but now I am somewhat suspicious of them. The main reason is the fact that as they were exploring alternatives to advertising driven revenue for their site, they promised to always have free resources available for those unwilling to pay for their advice. A cursory review of their site does show a decent amount of general investing information, so take these words with a grain of salt. (Another reason I am suspicious of them is the fact that they \"\"spammed\"\" me with lots of enticements to pay for their advice which seemed just like the type of advice they spoke against.) Anyway, time to put the soapbox away. As I do that though, I should explain the reason for this soapboxing. Simply put, investing is a risky endeavor, any way you slice it. You can never eliminate risk, you can only hope to reduce it to an acceptable level. What is acceptable is subject to your situation and to the magnitude of your risk aversion. Ultimately, it is rather subjective and you should not blindly follow someone else's opinion (professional or otherwise). Point being, use your judgment to evaluate anything you read about investing. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If someone purports to have some strategy for guaranteed (steady) returns, be very suspicious of it. (Read up on the Bernard Madoff scandal.) If someone is putting on a heavy sales pitch, be weary. Be especially suspicious of anyone asking you to pay for their advice before giving you any solid understanding of their strategy. Sure, many people want to get paid for their advice in some way (in fact, I am getting \"\"paid\"\" with reputation on this site). However, if they take the sketchy approach of a slimy salesmen, they are likely making more money from selling their strategy, than they are from the advice itself. Most likely, if they were getting outsized returns from their strategy they would keep quiet about it and continue using it themselves. As stated before, the more people pile onto a strategy, the smaller the returns. The typical model for selling is to make money from the sale. When the item being sold is an intangible good, your risk as a buyer increases. You may wonder why I have written at length without much discussion of asset allocation. One reason is that I am still a relative neophyte and have a mostly high level understanding of the various strategies. While I feel confident enough in my understanding for my own purposes, I do not necessarily feel confident creating an asset allocation strategy for someone else. The more important reason is that this is a subjective matter with a lot of variables to consider. If you want a quick and simple answer, I am afraid you will be disappointed. The best approach is to educate yourself and make these decisions for yourself. Hence, my attempt to educate you as best as I can at this point in time. Personally, I suggest you do what I did. Start reading the Wall Street Journal every day. (An acceptable substitute may be the business section of the New York Times.) At first you will be overwhelmed with information, but in the long run it will pay off. Another good piece of advice is to be patient and not rush into investing. If you are in a hurry to determine how you should invest in a 401(k) or other such investment vehicle due to a desire to take advantage of an employer's matching funds, then I would place my money in an S&P 500 index fund. I would also explore placing some of that money into broad index funds from other regions of the globe. The reason for broad index funds is to provide some protection from the normal fluctuations and to reduce the risk of a sudden downturn causing you a lot pain while you determine the best approach for yourself. In this scenario, think more about capital preservation and hedging against inflation then about \"\"beating\"\" the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c00e188521bb82ead41c19c72e51825", "text": "\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce9537c51f2349ef3b2921eeeec8a658", "text": "It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8788fb6f09f2e04cc799dc597098b48c", "text": "The best asset allocation is one that lets you sleep well at night. Can you stomach a loss of 50% and hold on to that asset for 3 years, 5 years, or however long it will take to bounce back while everyone is telling you to sell it at a loss? All these calculations will be thrown out the window at the next market panic. You've probably been in situations where everyone's panicking and the market seems upside down and there are no rules. Most people think they'll stay rational, but unless you've been through a market panic, you don't really know how you'll react.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acd6ecb60230cccbe47d3f7ed7d5ef80", "text": "Take the easy approach - as suggested by John Bogle (founder of Vanguard - and a man worthy of tremendous respect). Two portfolios consisting of 1 index fund each. Invest your age% in the Fixed Income index fund. Invest (1-age)% in the stock index fund. Examples of these funds are the Total Market Index Fund (VTSMX) and the Total Bond Market Index (VBMFX). If you wish to be slightly more adventurous, blend (1-age-10)% as the Total Market Index Fund and a fixed 10% as Total International Stock Index (VGTSX). You will sleep well at night for most of your life.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1bea3acc878bbc52ef38fcc73324835a", "text": "\"An asset allocation formula is useful because it provides a way to manage risk. Rebalancing preserves your asset allocation. The investment risk of a well-diversified portfolio (with a few ETFs or mutual funds in there to get a wide range of stocks, bonds, and international exposure) is mostly proportional to the asset class distribution. If you started out with half-stocks and half-bonds, and stocks surged 100% over the past few years while bonds have stayed flat, then you may be left with (say) 66% stocks and 33% bonds. Your portfolio is now more vulnerable to future stock market drops (the risk associated with stocks). (Most asset allocation recommendations are a little more specific than a stock/bond split, but I'm sure you can get the idea.) Rebalancing can be profitable because it's a formulaic way to enforce you to \"\"buy low, sell high\"\". Massive recessions notwithstanding, usually not everything in your portfolio will rise and fall at the same time, and some are actually negatively correlated (that's one idea behind diversification, anyway). If your stocks have surged, chances are that bonds are cheaper. This doesn't always work (repeatedly transferring money from bonds into stocks while the market was falling in 2008-2009 could have lost you even more money). Also, if you rebalance frequently, you might incur expenses from the trading (depending on what sort of financial instrument you're holding). It may be more effective to simply channel new money into the sector that you're light on, and limit the major rebalancing of the portfolio so that it's just an occasional thing. Talk to your financial adviser. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd2ff40e912f08c9192831e67f19e90d", "text": "Look through the related questions. Make sure you fund the max your tax advantaged retirement funds will take this year. Use the 30k to backstop any shortfalls. Invest the rest in a brokerage account. In and out of your tax advantaged accounts, try to invest in index funds. Your feeling that paying someone to manage your investments might not be the best use is shared by many. jlcollinsnh is a financial independence blogger. He, and many others, recommend the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares. I have not heard of a lower expense ratio (0.05%). Search for financial independence and FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early). Use your windfall to set yourself on that road, and you will be less likely to sit where I am 25 years from now wishing you had done things differently. Edit: Your attitude should be that the earliest money in your portfolio is in there the longest, and earns the most. Starting with a big windfall puts you years ahead of where you'd normally be. If you set your goal to retire at 40, that money will be worth significantly more in 20 years. (4x what you start with, assuming 7% average yearly return).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "789d3dcae90ef6d21ef686157bc50cf5", "text": "I would open a taxable account with the same custodian that manages your Roth IRA (e.g., Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.). Then within the taxable account I would invest the extra money in low cost, broad market index funds that are tax efficient. Unlike in your 401(k) and Roth IRA, you will now have tax implications if your funds produce dividends or realize a capital gain. That is why tax-efficient funds are important to minimize this as much as possible. The 3-fund portfolio is a popular choice for taxable accounts because of simplicity and the tax efficiency of broad market index funds that are part of the three fund portfolio. The 3-fund portfolio normally consists of Depending on your tax bracket you may want to consider municipal bonds in your taxable instead of taxable bonds if your tax bracket is 25% or higher. Another option is to forgo bonds altogether in the taxable account and just hold bonds in retirement accounts while keeping tax efficient domestic and international tock funds in your taxable account. Then adjust the bond portion upward in your retirement accounts to account for the additional stocks in your taxable accounts. This will maintain the asset allocation that you've already chosen that is appropriate for your age and goals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7034b1830c9bba00e0fa8ff154ab84d5", "text": "\"Here's a dump from what I use. Some are a bit more expensive than those that you posted. The second column is the expense ratio. The third column is the category I've assigned in my spreadsheet -- it's how I manage my rebalancing among different classes. \"\"US-LC\"\" is large cap, MC is mid cap, SC is small cap. \"\"Intl-Dev\"\" is international stocks from developed economies, \"\"Emer\"\" is emerging economies. These have some overlap. I don't have a specific way to handle this, I just keep an eye on the overall picture. (E.g. I don't overdo it on, say, BRIC + Brazil or SPY + S&P500 Growth.) The main reason for each selection is that they provide exposure to a certain batch of securities that I was looking for. In each type, I was also aiming for cheap and/or liquid like you. If there are substitutes I should be looking at for any of these that are cheaper and/or more liquid, a comment would be great. High Volume: Mid Volume (<1mil shares/day): Low Volume (<50k shares/day): These provide enough variety to cover the target allocation below. That allocation is just for retirement accounts; I don't consider any other savings when I rebalance against this allocation. When it's time to rebalance (i.e. a couple of times a year when I realize that I haven't done it in several months), I update quotes, look at the percentages assigned to each category, and if anything is off the target by more than 1% point I will buy/sell to adjust. (I.e. if US-LC is 23%, I sell enough to get back to 20%, then use the cash to buy more of something else that is under the target. But if US-MC is 7.2% I don't worry about it.) The 1% threshold prevents unnecessary trading costs; sometimes if everything is just over 1% off I'll let it slide. I generally try to stay away from timing, but I do use some of that extra cash when there's a panic (after Jan-Feb '09 I had very little cash in the retirement accounts). I don't have the source for this allocation any more, but it is the result of combining a half dozen or so sample allocations that I saw and tailoring it for my goals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f0cca52044dd1b928369fc8e2ad8a9e", "text": "\"First, decide on your asset allocation; are you looking for a fund with 60% stocks/risky-stuff, or 40% or 20%? Second, look for funds that have a mix of stocks and bonds. Good keywords would be: \"\"target retirement,\"\" \"\"lifecycle,\"\" \"\"balanced,\"\" \"\"conservative/moderate allocation.\"\" As you discover these funds, probably the fund website (but at least Morningstar.com) will tell you the percentage in stocks and risk assets, vs. in conservative bonds. Look for funds that have the percentage you decided on, or as close to it as possible. Third, build a list of funds that meet your allocation goal, and compare the details. Are they based on index funds, or are they actively managed? What is the expense ratio? Is the fund from a reputable company? You could certainly ask more questions here if you have several candidates and aren't sure how to choose. For investing in US dollars one can't-go-wrong choice is Vanguard and they have several suitable funds, but unfortunately if you spend in NIS then you should probably invest in that currency, and I don't know anything about funds in Israel. Update: two other options here. One is a financial advisor who agrees to do rebalancing for you. If you get a cheap one, it could be worth it. Two is that some 401k plans have an automatic rebalancing feature, where you have multiple funds but you can set it up so their computer auto-rebalances you. That's almost as good as having a single fund, though it does still encourage some \"\"mental accounting\"\" so you'd have to try to only look at the total balance, not the individual fund balances, over time. Anyway both of these could be alternatives ways to go on autopilot, besides a single fund.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "504c08e32f4e3ff825c97a72198693ce", "text": "\"It depends on what you're talking about. If this is for your retirement accounts, like IRAs, then ABSOLUTELY NOT! In your retirement accounts you should be broadly diversified - not just between stocks, but also other markets like bonds. Target retirement funds and solid conservative or moderate allocation funds are the best 'quick-and-dirty' recommendation for those accounts. Since it's for the long haul, you want to be managing risk, not chasing returns. Returns will happen over the 40 or so years they have to grow. Now, if you're talking about a taxable stock account, and you've gotten past PF questions like \"\"am I saving enough for retirement\"\", and \"\"have I paid off my debt\"\", then the question becomes a little more murky. First, yes, you should be diversified. The bulk of how a stock's movement will be in keeping with how its sector moves; so even a really great stock can get creamed if its sector is going down. Diversification between several sectors will help balance that. However, you will have some advantage in this sector. Knowing which products are good, which products everybody in the industry is excited about, is a huge advantage over other investors. It'll help you pick the ones that go up more when the sector goes up, and down less when the sector goes down. That, over time and investments, really adds up. Just remember that a good company and a good stock investment are not the same thing. A great company can have a sky-high valuation -- and if you buy it at that price, you can sit there and watch your investment sink even as the company is growing and doing great things. Have patience, know which companies are good and which are bad, and wait for the price to come to you. One final note: it also depends on what spot you are in. If you're a young guy looking looking to invest his first few thousand in the market, then go for it. On the other hand, if you're older, and we're talking about a couple hundred grand you've got saved up, then it's a whole different ball of wax. It that spot, you're back to managing risk, and need to build a solid portfolio, at a measured pace.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7d9c4bf2b61eb3db9597a0ec295392c", "text": "\"Here is the \"\"investing for retirement\"\" theoretical background you should have. You should base your investment decisions not simply on the historical return of the fund, but on its potential for future returns and its risk. Past performance does not indicate future results: the past performance is frequently at its best the moment before the bubble pops. While no one knows the specifics of future returns, there are a few types of assets that it's (relatively) safe to make blanket statements about: The future returns of your portfolio will primarily be determined by your asset allocation . The general rules look like: There are a variety of guides out there to help decide your asset allocation and tell you specifically what to do. The other thing that you should consider is the cost of your funds. While it's easy to get lucky enough to make a mutual fund outperform the market in the short term, it's very hard to keep that up for decades on end. Moreover, chasing performance is risky, and expensive. So look at your fund information and locate the expense ratio. If the fund's expense ratio is 1%, that's super-expensive (the stock market's annualized real rate of return is about 4%, so that could be a quarter of your returns). All else being equal, choose the cheap index fund (with an expense ratio closer to 0.1%). Many 401(k) providers only have expensive mutual funds. This is because you're trapped and can't switch to a cheaper fund, so they're free to take lots of your money. If this is the case, deal with it in the short term for the tax benefits, then open a specific type of account called a \"\"rollover IRA\"\" when you change jobs, and move your assets there. Or, if your savings are small enough, just open an IRA (a \"\"traditional IRA\"\" or \"\"Roth IRA\"\") and use those instead. (Or, yell at your HR department, in the event that you think that'll actually accomplish anything.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40ded5eaf1e822f9c6f32a36d2678a0f", "text": "The safest investment is probably a money market fund [originally I said a TIPS fund but they appear to be riskier than I had thought]. But you might not want to invest everything there because the returns are not going to be great. High returns come with high risk. The best portfolio has some percentage (which may be 0) of your money in a safe asset like a money market and some in a risky portfolio (this percentage may also be zero for some people). You should consult your own risk aversion and decide how much money to put in each. If you are super risk-averse, put almost all of it in the money market. If you want a little more return, put more of it in the risky portfolio. This is a fundamental result of finance theory. What's the risky asset? A fully diversified portfolio of bonds and stocks. People don't agree on exactly what the weights should be. The rule of thumb back in the day was 60% stock and 40% bonds. These days lots of financial planners recommend 120 minus your age in stock and the rest in bonds. But no one really knows what the perfect weights in the risky portfolio should be (the rules of thumb I just gave have little or no theoretical foundation) so you have to choose for yourself what you think makes sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2af54e9f869b44c4f65083b7c30d1f2d", "text": "Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "050c767b77c61494380662aa4b300d36", "text": "\"Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked. Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A \"\"whole market\"\" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re \"\"risk free\"\". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "073cb8a7fb44788cd73b350958d3e45c", "text": "\"This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it. By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions. But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution. I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things \"\"average out\"\" over time. If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical. Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return. You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion. When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks? In many cases, less risks. This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills). When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk. Buying risky securities adds to that risk. When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky. You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so. But I can't be sure.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "883e13003661c691b6adae423ffef8b1", "text": "\"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \"\"dry periods\"\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \"\"relies\"\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c6ab5bb3293780622eb0644d28f7890", "text": "The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fe0703305a3f003fdb6704d235718cf", "text": "\"First, congratulations on choosing to invest in low cost passively managed plans. If you choose any one of these options and stick with it, you will already be well ahead of most individual investors. Almost all plans will allow you to re-balance between asset classes. With some companies, sales agents will encourage you to sell your overweighted assets and buy underweighted assets as this generates brokerage commissions for them, but when you only need to make minor adjustments, you can simply change the allocation of the new money going into your account until you are back to your target weights. Most plans will let you do this for free, and in general, you will only need to do this every few years at most. I don't see much reason for you to be in the Target funds. The main feature of these plans is that they gradually shift you to a more conservative asset allocation over time, and are designed to prevent people who are close to retirement from being too aggressive and risking a major loss just before retirement. It's very likely that at your age, most plans will have very similar recommendations for your allocation, with equities at 80% or more, and this is unlikely to change for the next few decades. The main benefits of betterment seems to be simplicity and ease of use, but there is one concern I would have for you with betterment. Precisely because it is so easy to tweak your allocation, I'm concerned that you might hurt your long-term results by reacting to short-term market conditions: I know I said I wanted a hands off account, but what if the stock market crashes and I want to allocate more to bonds??? One of the biggest reasons that stock returns are better than bond returns on average is that you are being paid to accept additional risk, and living with significant ups and downs is part of what it means to be in the stock market. If you are tempted to take money out of an asset class when it has been \"\"losing/feels dangerous\"\" and put more in when it is \"\"winning/feels safe\"\", my concerns is that you will end up buying high and selling low. I'd recommend taking a look at this article on the emotional cycle of investing. My point is simply that it's very likely that if you are moving money in and out of stocks based on volatility, you're much less likely to get the full market return over the long term, and might be better off putting more weight in asset classes with lower volatility. Either way, I'd recommend taking one or more risk tolerance assessments online and making sure you're committed to sticking with a long-term plan that doesn't involve more risk than you can really live with. I tend to lean toward Vanguard Life Strategy simply because Vanguard as a company has been around longer, but betterment does seem very accessible to a new investor. Best of luck with your decision!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83fa503ea90a4e5fea21255a9997700b", "text": "\"A bank is a technology that allows society to consume now at the expense of later. Think about it this way: to consume later at the expense of now, all you have to do is save your stuff. If you want to eat pizza in a year, you can buy a bunch of pizza now, freeze it, then eat it a year later. Or you can hide money under your mattress now, and buy pizza a year later from now. But what if you want to eat pizza now, but you don't have the money to buy it? Well, you're stuck. There's no time travel: you can't go into the future and get resources from your future self to buy the pizza now with! Well, you could go to your wealthy friend who has a lot of pizza, and say, hey, if you give me pizza/money now, I will pay you back with more later! Except then your ability to get pizza/money depends on the whims of some really wealthy people who may not like you. And what if your wealthy friend really wants to keep all of his pizza? There is nothing you can do to get it now. A bank is an entity that can provide the resources/purchasing power for you to get your pizza now without anyone in the economy eating less now as a result. It does this via what is known as \"\"Fractional Reserve Banking,\"\" which is pretty simple. I borrow $100 from person A, keep $10 in reserve, then lend the remaining $90 to person B, who deposits it back into his bank. I keep $9 of person B's deposit in reserve, then lend $89 to person C, who deposits it in the bank, and so on and so forth. The total amount of purchasing power I can create is $1000 out of the initial $100 I borrowed from person A. As long as all my depositors don't all try to get their money out at once, society can essentially \"\"cheat time\"\" by pretending there is $1000 in existence when in reality there is only $100. Thus I have increased the purchasing power of the economy now at the expense of later (when the loans have to be repaid), and no one has to stop consuming now for me to do it! Note that this is not the typical academic answer. Neoclassical economists will say that banks are \"\"mere intermediaries\"\" between savers and borrowers. They are wrong. Banks provide the ability to consume now at the expense of later even if no one in society is saving now. That means when there is lots of lending going on, that we have an economic boom. But when there is little to no lending going on, and people are paying back their debts, we don't have as much (if any) growth.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
28770db3acfeba116db73af89bb8042a	Gigantic point amount on rewards card - what are potential consequences?	[ { "docid": "63cb75611375746f06571c1a15539d58", "text": "\"I can't give you proper legal advice, but if I called their customer service and used half an hour of my time to wait and explain the situation in detail, and their official response was \"\"just use the points,\"\" I would do just that. Of course you would have stronger legal standing if you had recorded their answer, or had it in writing from them. But I don't think spending these points will come crashing down on you. And morally I see absolutely no problem with spending these points; it is not as if you are stealing from someone else. These points can usually be given away in any kind of crazy manner. Sometimes there are lotteries or events where they give away 100,000 points for new customers who open up an account on a specific weekend. Sometimes they give points to customers who want to terminate their contracts as an attempt to coax them into staying. They have given you a lot of points and don't really care. As a result you are probably staying their customer forever – and will most likely tell this story to many friends. This is free advertising for them. Heck, maybe they would even make a news story out of this some day, it could be good publicity. Everyone is essentially getting these points \"\"for free\"\" but in fact the company has a business case by improving their image and customer retention with these points. So you can spend these points with a sound mind morally. Legally you would have to contact a lawyer, but I think chances for legal repercussions are small if you have done your duty, informed them and their customer service basically said it's ok.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e099e701dd6df16a91d3ffbb155fbb2", "text": "I would behave exactly as I would expect it from others. If you were the one giving away too many points by accident you would be thankful if somebody notifies you about this error. You can write a letter or call them. I would not use the points (of course only not use the points which are added in error). Other options are possible but I would advise against them. It's just about fair play and the points are clearly not yours.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bfc191d04d5f533db5ecc64973032fc", "text": "If you want to maximize your expected benefits, at minimal risk of financial repercussions or sleepless nights, I would suggest the following. Send an email explaining the situation, and announce that you plan to use the points if they do not advise otherwise. Here is an example message: Dear sir/madam, I recently contacted your helpdesk to mention that I believe my points balance is higher than it should be, and I was told that I could consider the extra points a gift. I assume that settles it, but in case I am mistaken please contact me within 4 weeks. My customer number is xxxx. Kind regards, Note that it is no problem if they don't reply, but you may want to push for a (possibly automated) confirmation of receiving your message. I would not be surprised if they still reduce your balance sometime in the future, but you should be reasonably covered if they try to reclaim any points that you already spent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1035449fef85470de7ed1620ac9924fc", "text": "Of course, as a 'good' person (or maybe a 'stupid' person), I should call them, (wait 30 minutes in the queue), and then try to explain the issue to the service desk. I actually did that, and the guy thought I am nuts to even call, and told me to 'just use them they are yours now'. I don't feel like calling again and again until I get someone that believes it, just to return them their points. Calling generally does not solve this problem. You would need to write a letter using certified mail and send some reminders. Hopefully they should notice it, if not you at least have evidence that you have communicated. I could just toss the card and forget about it. However, I had quite some points on it that really belong to me, so that feels like I pay for their fault. There is no need. You can continue to use the card as usual. Use them and play stupid. This is not a good idea. They are clearly not yours. Somewhere in Terms and Conditions you will find some fine print about notifying Bank/Financial Institution about the errors. Best course, after intimating informing them via letters, keep using your card as normal and use your points as normal. You would roughly know your points balance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c68254718470bf76187aa357d79b84d2", "text": "\"An ideal option for you would be to use as many or as few as you choose, but have all of them available to you. The service desk guy told you you can do exactly that. Problem, though: you have no proof that a representative of the company told you that. Get proof. Recording, written statement, whatever. If writing a letter, make it clear you expect a response. The time you spend \"\"being a good guy\"\" is not free, you should get something for it. No idea how to go about that - mentioning the service desk guy in a letter might give him trouble. Maybe suggest that you could allow your image to be used in a short advertising campaign, as thanks. But whatever you do get, enjoy it. Consequences? Any number of things can happen, from lifetime free meals to court cases, negative points and being banned, regardless of who is right, legally or morally. Someone in Management there might still choose to burden you with responsibility even if their own CEO declared you a saint and lifetime customer of honor. But you might never get to that bridge. For now, get proof, and use what points you know are yours anyway.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d17c36845141a29fef57966cdaa87c8", "text": "\"First IANAL! This is going to depend on the kind of points. If it's an internal point system that the business is doing on their own, then they may very well, give you that many \"\"extra\"\" points. They may really not care. Specially if the cost of the points is low enough. Remember that steak dinner that you paid $60 for only really cost them $2 and that they use $60 worth of points on it. If the point system is tied to a bank or credit card, then it's far more likely that the \"\"just use them\"\" is not the proper answer. The company doing the reimbursing is giving the location $60 and using your points. The points have a much higher value. With that said, your responsibility is to notify, and follow their rules. So notify them in writing, and use the rewards card as you normally would. If your being honest, then the worst that happens is that your point balance is a little negative (because you spent 100 points but really only had 98 after adjustment). Most likely, if your being honest, they will just eat the few points over that you went on accident. If you get an answer in writing to just keep the points, then I guess you know where your daughter's wedding reception will be. Let's hope it's a classy place. Of course, as a 'good' person (or maybe a 'stupid' person), I should call them, (wait 30 minutes in the queue), and then try to explain the issue to the service desk. I actually did that, and the guy thought I am nuts to even call, and told me to 'just use them they are yours now'. I don't feel like calling again and again until I get someone that believes it, just to return them their points. You will want to do this in writing. Email will work, but you really want a paper trail, either way. I could just toss the card and forget about it. However, I had quite some points on it that really belong to me, so that feels like I pay for their fault. There is no need to do this. It's like a bank error. Talk to them and they will give you an answer. In the mean time, do your best to only use the points you actually have. Use them and play stupid. It's not my duty to check their math, right? Probably nobody will ever care (let's keep religious considerations out here). What would be the consequences if they do realize their error some day in the far future? (I understand this borders on a legal question). Nope, don't do this. If you play dumb and spend 5000 points when you know you only have around 100, best case scenario you end up with -4900 points (effectively canceling the benefit of the card). You may also be banned form the program, the location, the network, etc. Worst case scenario they want the monetary value of the points and sue you for it, and the legal fees. It may even be considered fraud. TL;DR Use your card, but be honest, and handle the mistake in writing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe930d054d1b1a646c22b54864d1c8ac", "text": "\"Most likely scenario (A): You spend tons of time and effort talking to them, with the end result that they take away the extra points. You feel screwed having to do their job for them - they've given you no benefit for looking out for them, and you're left with the points you've earned but maybe less desire to go back and use them. Most likely scenario (B): You just use the points, they eventually figure out the problem and fix it. They send you a nasty letter, demanding some sort of compensation that they have no legal obligation to (because points are not money, you will have rendered existing points for service, and they have, per your existing phone call which can be substantiated in existence though not content through phone records, confirmed that they are yours) - they may go so far as to bar you from their premises. If you don't use enough points to go \"\"negative\"\" before they fix it, you may avoid this. If they can deal with this competently from a customer service/PR standpoint, then in scenario (A) they may understand you quickly, and they may leave you with some extra points for your trouble. In scenario (B), pretty much the same thing - they'll let you have the points you used and even leave you a little extra. I suggest in either case you only engage in written communication with them or, if your jurisdiction allows it, record voice conversations. You need a record of what you've been told.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cebe28aaf1d92268406cce90949a468", "text": "\"What would be the consequences if they do realize their error some day in the far future? You've informed them of the error and they've informed you that nevertheless the points are yours and you should use them. So you have a couple of issues: have you made what your jurisdiction considers a reasonable effort to correct the mistake, and did the customer service rep actually have the authority to make such a large goodwill gesture as letting you keep all the points? The first is your legal responsibility (otherwise you're stealing), and you need to know specifically for your jurisdiction whether a phone call is sufficient. I can't tell you that. Maybe you should send them a letter, maybe you should wait until you've had written confirmation from them, maybe you're OK as you are. You might be able to get free advice from some body that helps with consumer issues (here in the UK you could ask Citizen's Advice). The second is beyond your ability to know for sure but it's not dishonest to work on the basis that what the company's proper representative tells you, is true. With the usual caveats that I'm not qualified to give legal advice: once told you've been clearly told that it's an intentional gift, I don't see any way you could be held to have done anything fraudulent if you then go about enjoying it. The worst case \"\"far future\"\" problem, I would expect, is that someone decides the gift was never legitimately made in the first place. In other words the company made two separate errors, first crediting the card and then telling you the erroneous points stand. In that case you might have to pay them back whatever you've spent on the card (beyond the points you're entitled to). To avoid this you'd need to establish what constitutes a binding gift in your jurisdiction, so that you can say \"\"no, the point balance was not erroneous and here's the legal reason why\"\", and pay them nothing. You might also need to consider any tax implications in receiving such a large gift, and of course before paying tax on it (if that's necessary) you'd probably want to bug them for confirmation in writing that it really is yours. If that written confirmation isn't forthcoming then so be it, they've rescinded the gift and I doubt you're inclined to take them to court demanding that they stand by the words of their rep. Use them and play stupid. It's not my duty to check their math, right? That's potentially fraud or theft if you lie. You did notice, and even worse they have proof you noticed since you made the call. So never say you didn't notice. If you hadn't called them (yet), then you've been given something in error, and your jurisdiction will have an opinion on what your responsibilities are. So if you hadn't already called them, I would strongly suggest that you should call them or write to them about it to give them the opportunity to correct the error, or at least seek assurance that in your jurisdiction all errors in the customer's favour are final. Otherwise you're in the position of them accidentally handing you their wallet without realising, and you deciding to keep it without telling them. My guess is, that's unlikely to be a legally binding gift, and might legally be theft or fraud on your part.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c20932e982311b1eb7c0ae28931d70f1", "text": "They don't make any money off of you personally. They make money off of the merchants per transaction when you use the card. You trigger this fee to the credit card issuer, but it doesn't come out of your pocket. (Or it shouldn't; merchants aren't allowed to pass this fee on to you.) They keep you around because you may at some point become less responsible than you already are, and it would be quite costly to get you back (a couple hundred dollars is the cost of acquiring a new credit card customer). People who are less responsible than you subsidize your free float and your rewards (if any) but the new CARD act makes it more difficult for people to use their cards irresponsibly, so these perks that you enjoy will get less perky with time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "777609ebf107f439f7d88abfd8f47406", "text": "\"In the end, all these fees hurt the average consumer, since the merchant ultimately passes cost to consumer. Savvy consumers can stay at par or get ahead, if they put in the effort. It's a pain, but I rotate between 4 cards depending on time of year and type of purchase, to optimize cash back. My cards are: 1. 5% rewards card on certain categories, rotates each quarter 2. 2% travel/dining card (fee card, but I travel a bunch so it's worth it, no foreign transaction fees) 3. 1.5% rewards card for everything else 4. Debit card (swiped as a CC) for small purchases (i.e. lunches) at credit union for \"\"enhanced\"\" high interest checking account, requiring certain # swipes/month. This alone returns to me ~$800/yr.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84bd84638b9c26447e6e35d4917ebf4a", "text": "I agree that it sounds like a lot. The last time I read about it someone had been banned for violating the threshold. They were very angry. Their point was that it fails to account for volume of purchases or cost of items returned. They had been buying everything through amazon, so it was particularly harsh to be cut off, but they thought it was unfair since some people are able to exceed the amount of value returned comparatively several times over without violating the magic threshold. (i.e. return 40 $1 items and lose your account, but return 10 $1k items and you're fine).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1aa12d914340adbd9d3898ad63ab22e8", "text": "What's being left unsaid here is that Target, and every other retailer, knows that only about 30% of gift cards are ever used. So they're still raking in money, and do so knowing that they're tricking well-intentioned customers into exchanging actual money for play money that likely won't be used.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb0e3e99c7cda972e38413ba3620e23d", "text": "\"There are hidden costs to using rewards cards for everything. The credit card company charges fees to the merchant every time you make a purchase. These fees are a small amount per transaction, plus a portion of the transaction amount. These fees are higher for rewards cards. (For example, the fees might be 35 cents for a PIN-transaction on a debit card, or 35 cents plus 2 percent for an ordinary credit card or signature transaction on a debit card, or 35 cents plus 3.5 percent on a rewards card.) After considering all of their expenses, merchant profit margins are often quite small. To make the same amount of profit by serving a rewards-card customer as a cash customer, the merchant needs to sell higher profit-margin items and/or more items to the rewards-card customer. People who \"\"pay with plastic\"\" tend to spend more than people who \"\"pay with cash\"\". If you pay with a rewards card, will you spend even more?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3bcddaa2b5780a003a5fcbafe1192b8", "text": "I'd say the best course of action would be to call the card issuer and ask them. Converting can definitely be done, but you'll have to enquire about the bonus.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "010b9f7f106a63c25ec5dd87c62d07eb", "text": "I'm NMLS with a bank, won't name it, but you can buy and sell points up to .5 if I remember right. Might be 1% but it's the difference between 1300 and 1700 if I remember right for monthly payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e192a3138b652443a84f7f49f0a91cea", "text": "Generally speaking, you'll be able to keep it. Your spending ability may be reduced though. The published eligibility criteria aren't necessarily carved in stone anyway. Some road-warrior types with platinum cards who don't necessarily spend $250k a year will get the card offered to them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "950898f483d9ce6377d07e9f54f1e44b", "text": "\"Understand that buying a Starbucks gift card at the grocery store to receive 6% back on your coffee rather than 6% back on your groceries is an exploit of a flaw in the benefits program, not a feature. It's definitely not a blanket yes or no answer, the only way to find out is to try. Separately, I don't know why you would find this \"\"concerning.\"\" This will vary greatly between merchants and cards. There will always be new points churning exploits, they don't last forever and you can't expect every customer service rep to be well versed in methods employed to juice cardmember programs. Hell, a number of years ago one person figured out that he could buy rolls of $1 coins from the US treasury with free shipping and no additional fees. This guy was literally buying thousands of dollars of cash each month to deposit and pay his credit card bill; completely against the terms of the treasury program for distributing the $1 coins. A number of people had their cards and points/cash back revoked for that one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ce484d7657417c8078f20d1c5295f04", "text": "Since the POS machines are tied into the register it would be rather difficult to overcharge with an attentive patron. They would have to add an additional item onto the purchase in order to increase the total before running the card (very few system allow cashback to be requested from the teller side), and most machines have audible cues every time an item is added. If you are paying attention to the teller and not talking/playing on your phone (or other distracting things) then I would say the feasibility is probably very low. Except for rare exceptions while traveling I only shop at locations where I can see the total on the register, and make sure it looks correct before handing my card over.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71e838510d0785a6725222dbb1868b00", "text": "Store cards also tend to have a fairly low credit limit so depending on how much money you spend on the card, your credit utilisation might be a lot higher than desirable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41faca718c8433eb62c37726c8cf2c99", "text": "\"As far as the banker himself goes, it's a customer service issue. WF is not going to tell you about their internal discipline (or oughtn't, anyway), other than potentially to confirm that the banker does or does not still work there; that's the closest they should get to telling you about it. I'm a (very) former retail manager, and that's absolutely the most I'd ever do in a case like this; and trust me, even with good customer service reps, you get requests to fire someone a lot, sometimes valid, sometimes not. You did the correct thing from your end: you brought the issue to their attention. Despite the quota, it's (hopefully) not permitted to sign people up without their permission (since that's illegal!), and I can say that in my retail experience, with these promotions with great incentive to cheat in this manner, one of the main things our loss prevention department did was to monitor data to see if people were illicitly signing people up for cards or otherwise cheating the system. That could be a very bad thing from a customer service point of view and from a legal point of view. What you should have done (or possibly did, but it's not clear in your post) is, after you reported the issue, asked for a re-contact on a particular date in the future - not \"\"after you've looked into it\"\", but \"\"Next friday I would like to get a call from you to discuss the resolution.\"\" Again, they're not going to tell you the discipline, but they should tell you at least that they've investigated it and will make sure it doesn't happen again, or similar. It's possible they will want more information from you at this point, and this is a useful way to make sure that request doesn't fall off of their plate. They should be able to, at least, tell you if there was a perceived issue on their end - it might be something meaningless to you, like \"\"He thought you said to sign up\"\", or something more descriptive, like \"\"He pushed the button to send you a notice, but our computer system screwed that up and made it an application\"\". You never know these days how easy it is to screw these things up. Now, they certainly should have fixed the issues on your end. Hopefully they did whatever you needed them to do banking-wise, or else you withdrew your money and went somewhere else. If not, follow up with that supervisor's supervisor, or go up a level or two to a regional director or equivalent. They may not be able to cancel the card for you, but the other banking-related things they certainly should fix. The card you probably just have to cancel and be done with. As far as the misuse of personal information, one thing I'd consider doing is placing a freeze on your credit report. Then this could never have happened - you would have to lift it to have your report pulled to be given the card. This is not free, though, so consider this before doing this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "206fcc394cd42047e135996b36db0866", "text": "\"The service processors are providing is absorbing the risk. The flow goes, roughly (and I say roughly because it's a complicated process): 1. You swipe/insert your card at Bob's House of Eatery and get charged $10 for a bucket of ramen or something. 2. The device you swipe your card in, (\"\"a terminal\"\") encodes the card number, amount, and some other transaction details and contacts a \"\"Payment Gateway\"\". 3. The gateway decodes the blob of data, and is responsible for determining the issuing financial institution (\"\"Chase\"\", \"\"US Bank\"\", etc.). 4. The gateway contacts the above and asks, \"\"Can card # 555.. charge $10?\"\" 5. The gateway also sends this answer to the processor. 5. The processor _immediately_ proxies that yes/no back to the merchant's terminal. 6. The processor, having a transaction ID, and a yes/no, sends the response to the merchant's systems so your receipt can be printed or order processed, and so on. 7. Meanwhile, the processor has a transaction ID and is busy figuring out things like interchange fees. The amount depends on a whole host of things, and almost everyone involved in the process wants their cut -- the bank, the gateway, the processor, and it all depends on the type of card, customer, rewards, and so on. 8. At the end of the day, week, whatever, the processor collects money from the issuing financial institution and is responsible for giving the right amount -- less fees -- to the merchant. The processor here also absorbs the risk and costs for things like chargebacks, as almost everyone in that chain (gateway, issuing bank) want their pound of flesh for a chargeback, and often the processor doesn't pass that full cost on to the merchant and instead does some risk analysis to determine if they think this merchant is going to be okay to do business with. That's what you're paying for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab13c8e94669d0061ba71990a2911d94", "text": "a free $50 looks too good to be true. As others already pointed out, these offers are common to many cards that want you to build loyalty towards a particular company (e.g. airlines cards give lots of mileage for a decent initial spend). Should I get this card for the $50? Why and/or why not? How much do you spend on Amazon, or are planning to do so in future? This offer has been around for ages (earlier they used to offer much smaller amounts of $20 for signing up) and you never saw it. So probably, you won't be really using the site frequently. In that case, its just a matter of whether $50 is worth the hassle for you to sign up and then later cancel (if you don't want to manage another new card). The hit to credit score is likely to be minimal unless you do such offers often. As such, for a person who rarely buys on Amazon I wouldn't advise you to sign up for this card, there are better rewards cards that are not as tied to a particular site (such as Chase Freedom, Discover etc.) If however, you are a regular shopper but just never noticed this prompt earlier; then it is worthwhile to get this - or even consider the Prime version, which you will get or be automatically upgraded to if the account has Prime membership. That gives 5% back instead of 3% on Amazon.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f18cbce1637a4bb01a6725d1a3c5b52", "text": "China does not use dollar for their largest oil buy, Russia, Iran. They also have yuan swap agreement with their large trading partners like Korea, japan, EU. Basically, the only trade that will be critically affected will be north america and latin america. China's critical trade in Eurasia are all in non dollar already. China has built, its own international payment system, central bank swap agreements, SWIFT alternative, largest commodity market, and various free trade agreements and zones. 20% of US import is chinese goods, mainly consumer product and electrical machines. So that will be interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_China", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
be98cea16eb8e879b9c19fa82d69e8be	Why does an option lose time value faster as it approaches expiry	[ { "docid": "e4eb607ed1a2b9f4566a845d2b5bb690", "text": "If you think about it, the value of an option comes from the chance that the price at the expiration date can exceed the strike price. As it gets closer to the expiration date, the chance is getting smaller, because there is simply not enough time for an out-of-money option to hit that strike. Therefore, the value of an option decays.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "262e7e5fd2ce5bb84fb3f35d9644cb26", "text": "\"This is because volatility is cumulative and with less time there is less cumulative volatility. The time value and option value are tied to the value of the underlying. The value of the underlying (stock) is quite influenced by volatility, the possible price movement in a given span of time. Thirty days of volatility has a much broader spread of values than two days, since each day benefits from the possible price change of the prior days. So if a stock could move up to +/- 1% in a day, then compounded after 5 days it could be +5%, +0%, or -5%. In other words, this is compounded volatility. Less time means far less volatility, which is geometric and not linear. Less volatility lowers the value of the underlying. See Black-Scholes for more technical discussion of this concept. A shorter timeframe until option expiration means there are fewer days of compounded volatility. So the expected change in the underlying will decrease geometrically. The odds are good that the price at T-5 days will be close to the price at T-0, much more so than the prices at T-30 or T-90. Additionally, the time value of an American option is the implicit put value (or implicit call). While an \"\"American\"\" option lets you exercise prior to expiry (unlike a \"\"European\"\" option, exercised only at expiry), there's an implicit put option in a call (or an implicit call in a put option). If you have an American call option of 60 days and it goes into the money at 30 days, you could exercise early. By contract, that stock is yours if you pay for it (or, in a put, you can sell whenever you decide). In some cases, this may make sense (if you want an immediate payoff or you expect this is the best price situation), but you may prefer to watch the price. If the price moves further, your gain when you use the call may be even better. If the price goes back out of the money, then you benefited from an implicit put. It's as though you exercised the option when it went in the money, then sold the stock and got back your cash when the stock went out of the money, even though no actual transaction took place and this is all just implicit. So the time value of an American option includes the implicit option to not use it early. The value of the implicit option also decreases in a nonlinear fashion, since the value of the implicit option is subject to the same valuation principles. But the larger principle for both is the compounded volatility, which drops geometrically.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2faf32fa6949c64df1a9126366fa459", "text": "NL7 is right and his B-S reference, a good one. Time decay happens to occur in a way that 2X the time gives an option 1.414X (the square root of 2) times the value, so half the time means about .707 of the value. This valuation model should help the trader decide on exactly how far out to go for a given trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e080f52dc5ab00a2c1dee3097206fc9", "text": "Don´t forget that changing volatility will have an impact on the time value too! So at times it can happen that your time value is increasing instead of decreasing, if the underlying (market) volatility moves up strongly. Look for articles on option greeks, and how they are interdependent. Some are well explaining in simple language.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45743fe1204527eb442e748805b613fa", "text": "\"Not cumulative volatility. It's cumulative probability density. Time value isn't linear because PDFs (probability distribution function) aren't linear. It's a type of distribution e.g. \"\"bell-curves\"\") These distributions are based on empirical data i.e. what we observe. BSM i.e. Black-Scholes-Merton includes the factors that influence an option price and include a PDF to represent the uncertainty/probability. Time value is based on historical volatility in the underlying asset price, in this case equity(stock). At the beginning, time value is high since there's time until expiration and the stock is expected to move within a certain range based on historical performance. As it nears expiration, uncertainty over the final value diminishes. This causes probability for a certain price range to become more likely. We can relate that to how people think, which affects the variation in the stock market price. Most people who are hoping for a value increase are optimistic about their chances of winning and will hold out towards the end. They see in the past d days, the stock has moved [-2%,+5%] so as a call buyer, they're looking for that upside. With little time remaining though, their hopes quickly drop to 0 for any significant changes beyond the market price. (Likewise, people keep playing the lottery up until a certain age when they're older and suddenly determine they're never going to win.) We see that reflected in the PDF used to represent options price movements. Thus your time value which is a function of probability decreases in a non-linear fashion. Option price = intrinsic value + time value At expiration, your option price = intrinsic value = stock price - strike price, St >= K, and 0 for St < K.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ab1a33618eb34680f2d6c4335cdccbc", "text": "Here's another attempt at explanation: it's basically because parabolas are flat at the bottom. Let me explain. As you might know, the variance of the log stock price in Black Scholes is vol^2 * T, in other words, variance of the log stock price is linear in time to expiry. Now, that means that the standard deviation of your log stock price is square root in time. This is consequential. For normally distributed random variables, in 68% of cases we end up within one standard deviation. So, basically, we expect our log stock price to be within something something times square root of T. So, if your stock has a vol of 16%, it'll be plus/minus 32% in 4 years, plus/minus 16% for one year, plus/minus 8% for 3m, plus/minus 4% for 3-ish weeks, and plus/minus 1% for a business day. As you see, the decay is slow at first, but much more rapid as we get closer. How does the square root function look? It's a sideways parabola. As we come closer to zero, the slope of the square root function goes to infinity. (That is related to the fact that Brownian motion is almost surely no-where differentiable - it just shoots off with infinite slope, returning immediately, of course :-) Another way of looking at it is the old traders rule of thumb that an at-the-money option is worth approximately S * 0.4 * vol * sqrt(T). (Just do a Taylor expansion of Black Scholes). Again, you have the square root of time to expiry in there, and as outlined above, as we get closer to zero, the square root drops slowly at first, and then precipitously.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0400607794f04d15bf9fdfe8a22e00b3", "text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "950bac4eb30e928cfcf88e9665f14bab", "text": "There are some excellent responses to this question at the time of this post. I have had the greatest success writing 1-month options. The 2 main reasons are as follows: With little time to expiration as stated in the question the implied volatility of the option is dictating the premium. Looking for the highest premiums is a mistake because you are taking a conservative strategy and re-creating it into a high-risk strategy. My sweet spot is a 2-4% monthly return for my initial profit and then mastering management techniques to protect that return and even enhancing it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a4079725f2d6fbf8f1f84c9048db43f", "text": "\"This chart concerns an option contract, not a stock. The method of analysis is to assume that the price of an option contract is normally distributed around some mean which is presumably the current price of the underlying asset. As the date of expiration of the contract gets closer the variation around the mean in the possible end price for the contract will decrease. Undoubtedly the publisher has measured typical deviations from the mean as a function of time until expiration from historical data. Based on this data, the program that computes the probability has the following inputs: (1) the mean (current asset price) (2) the time until expiration (3) the expected standard deviation based on (2) With this information the probability distribution that you see is generated (the green hump). This is a \"\"normal\"\" or Gaussian distribution. For a normal distribution the probability of a particular event is equal to the area under the curve to the right of the value line (in the example above the value chosen is 122.49). This area can be computed with the formula: This formula is called the probability density for x, where x is the value (122.49 in the example above). Tau (T) is the reciprocal of the variance (which can be computed from the standard deviation). Mu (μ) is the mean. The main assumption such a calculation makes is that the price of the asset will not change between now and the time of expiration. Obviously that is not true in most cases because the prices of stocks and bonds constantly fluctuate. A secondary assumption is that the distribution of the option price around the mean will a normal (or Gaussian) distribution. This is obviously a crude assumption and common sense would suggest it is not the most accurate distribution. In fact, various studies have shown that the Burr Distribution is actually a more accurate model for the distribution of option contract prices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a20065d917fb18d76572c8a226091329", "text": "\"Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To \"\"close out an options position\"\", you just have to create the \"\"opposite\"\" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have \"\"mini options contracts\"\", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, \"\"I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL\"\"; if the reason is because 100GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7b72120035518e6dfdd1a02bfa7bb9c", "text": "$15 - $5 = $10 How did you possibly buy a put for less than the intrinsic value of the option, at $8.25 So we can infer that you would have had to get this put when the stock price was AT LEAST $6.75, but given the 3 months of theta left, it was likely above $7 The value of the put if the price of the underlying asset (the stock ABC) meandered between $5 - $7 would be somewhere between $10 - $8 at expiration. So you don't really stand to lose much in this scenario, and can make a decent gain in this scenario. I mean decent if you were trading stocks and were trying to beat the S&P or keep up with Warren Buffett, but a pretty poor gain since you are trading options! If the stock moves above $7 this is where the put starts to substantially lose value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6102ca35a6adf578632c2b0f37dadc2f", "text": "\"Below I will try to explain two most common Binomial Option Pricing Models (BOPM) used. First of all, BOPM splits time to expiry into N equal sub-periods and assumes that in each period the underlying security price may rise or fall by a known proportion, so the value of an option in any sub-period is a function of its possible values in the following sub period. Therefore the current value of an option is found by working backwards from expiry date through sub-periods to current time. There is not enough information in the question from your textbook so we may assume that what you are asked to do is to find a value of a call option using just a Single Period BOPM. Here are two ways of doing this: First of all let's summarize your information: Current Share Price (Vs) = $70 Strike or exercise price (X) = $60 Risk-free rate (r) = 5.5% or 0.055 Time to maturity (t) = 12 months Downward movement in share price for the period (d) = $65 / $70 = 0.928571429 Upward movement in share price for the period (u) = 1/d = 1/0.928571429 = 1.076923077 \"\"u\"\" can be translated to $ multiplying by Vs => 1.076923077 $70 = $75.38 which is the maximum probable share price in 12 months time. If you need more clarification here - the minimum and maximum future share prices are calculated from stocks past volatility which is a measure of risk. But because your textbook question does not seem to be asking this - you probably don't have to bother too much about it yet. Intrinsic Value: Just in case someone reading this is unclear - the Value of an option on maturity is the difference between the exercise (strike) price and the value of a share at the time of the option maturity. This is also called an intrinsic value. Note that American Option can be exercised prior to it's maturity in this case the intrinsic value it simply the diference between strike price and the underlying share price at the time of an exercise. But the Value of an option at period 0 (also called option price) is a price you would normally pay in order to buy it. So, say, with a strike of $60 and Share Price of $70 the intrinsic value is $10, whereas if Share Price was $50 the intrinsic value would be $0. The option price or the value of a call option in both cases would be fixed. So we also need to find intrinsic option values when price falls to the lowest probable and rises to the maximum probable (Vcd and Vcu respectively) (Vcd) = $65-$60 = $5 (remember if Strike was $70 then Vcd would be $0 because nobody would exercise an option that is out of the money) (Vcu) = $75.38-$60 = $15.38 1. Setting up a hedge ratio: h = Vs(u-d)/(Vcu-Vcd) h = 70(1.076923077-0.928571429)/(15.38-5) = 1 That means we have to write (sell) 1 option for each share purchased in order to hedge the risks. You can make a simple calculation to check this, but I'm not going to go into too much detail here as the equestion is not about hedging. Because this position is risk-free in equilibrium it should pay a risk-free rate (5.5%). Then, the formula to price an option (Vc) using the hedging approach is: (Vs-hVc)(e^(rt))=(Vsu-hVcu) Where (Vc) is the value of the call option, (h) is the hedge ratio, (Vs) - Current Share Price, (Vsu) - highest probable share price, (r) - risk-free rate, (t) - time in years, (Vcu) - value of a call option on maturity at the highest probable share price. Therefore solving for (Vc): (70-1Vc)(e^(0.055(12/12))) = (75.38-115.38) => (70-Vc)1.056540615 = 60 => 70-Vc = 60/1.056540615 => Vc = 70 - (60/1.056540615) Which is similar to the formula given in your textbook, so I must assume that using 1+r would be simply a very close approximation of the formula above. Then it is easy to find that Vc = 13.2108911402 ~ $13.21 2. Risk-neutral valuation: Another way to calculate (Vc) is using a risk-neutral approach. We first introduce a variable (p) which is a risk-neutral probability of an increase in share price. p = (e^(rt)-d)/(u-d) so in your case: p = (1.056540615-0.928571429)/(1.076923077-0.928571429) = 0.862607107 Therefore using (p) the (Vc) would be equal: Vc = [pVcu+(1-p)Vcd]/(e^(rt)) => Vc = [(0.86260710715.38)+(0.137392893*5)]/1.056540615 => Vc = 13.2071229185 ~ $13.21 As you can see it is very close to the hedging approach. I hope this answers your questions. Also bear in mind that there is much more to the option pricing than this. The most important topics to cover are: Multi-period BOPM Accounting for Dividends Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10fc3cef181d456bb37c2c3051b40413", "text": "\"people are willing to pay higher premiums for options when stocks go down. Obviously the time value and intrinsic value and interests rates of the option doesn't change because of this so the miscalculation remainder is priced into the implied volatility part of the formula. Basically, anything that suggests the stock price will get volatile (sharp moves in either direction) will increase the implied volatility of the option. For instance, around earnings reports, the IV in both calls and puts in the nearest expiration dates are very high. When stocks go down sharply, the volatility is high because some people are buying puts for protection and others are buying calls because they think there will be a rebound move in the other direction. People (the \"\"sleep-at-night\"\" investors, not the derivatives traders ;) ) tend to be calm when stocks are going up, and fearful when they are going down. The psychology is important to understand and observe and profit from, not to quantitatively prove. The first paragraph should be your qualitative answer\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fef760738b2b90f87c049bb8f0a1675f", "text": "Consider the black-scholes-merton result. Notice that the expected value of the bond is its present value, discounted from the expiration date. The same is not applied to the price of the stock. The further in the future you go, the less value the bond carries because it's being discounted into oblivion. Now, looking at d1, as time tends towards infinity, so does d1. N(d1) is a probability. The higher d1, the higher the probability and vice versa, so as time increases, the probability for S trends to 100% while K is discounted away. Note that the math doesn't yet fully model reality, as extremely long dated options such as the European puts Buffett wrote were traded at ~1/2 the value the model said he should've. He still had to take a GAAP loss: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2008ltr.pdf", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45bfc533d97f7ecf635200aeda3fe529", "text": "\"Simple answer: Breakeven is when the security being traded reaches a price equal to the cost of the option plus the option's strike price, assuming you choose to exercise it. So for example, if you paid $1.00 for,say, a call option with a strike price of $19.00, breakeven would be when the security itself reaches $20.00. That being said, I can't imagine why you'd \"\"close out a position\"\" at the breakeven point. You wouldn't make or lose money doing that, so it wouldn't be rational. Now, as the option approaches expiration, you may make adjustments to the position to reflect shifts in momentum of the stock. So, if it looks as though the stock may not reach the option strike price, you could close out the position and take your lumps. But if the stock has momentum that will carry it past the strike price by expiration, you may choose to augment your position with additional contracts, although this would obviously mean the new contracts would be priced higher, which raises your dollar cost basis, and this may not make much sense. Another option in this scenario is that if the stock is going to surpass strike price, it might be a good opportunity to buy additional calls with either later expiration dates or with higher strike prices, depending on how much higher you speculate the stock will climb. I've managed to make some money doing this, buying options with strike prices just a dollar or two higher (or lower when playing puts), because the premiums were (in my opinion) underpriced to the potential peak of the stock by the expiration date. Sometimes the new options were actually slightly cheaper than my original positions, so my dollar cost basis overall dropped somewhat, improving my profit percentages.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d05eec50ca1f8a73a7bc81e46cb175e1", "text": "Short answer: Liquidity. Well, you have to see it from an exchange's point of view. Every contract they put up is a liability to them. You have to allocate resources for the order book, the matching engine, the clearing, etc. But only if the contract is actually trading they start earning (the big) money. Now for every new expiry they engage a long term commitment and it might take years for an option chain to be widely accepted (and hence before they're profitable). Compare the volumes and open interests of big chains versus the weeklies and you'll find that weeklies can still be considered illiquid compared to their monthly cousins. Having said that, like many things, this is just a question of demand. If there's a strong urge to trade July weeklies one day, there will be an option chain. But, personally I think, as long as there are the summer doldrums there will be no rush to ask for Jul and Aug chains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd44277568aafe069a5ce3e22647d487", "text": "I would make a change to the answer from olchauvin: If you buy a call, that's because you expect that the value of call options will go up. So if you still think that options prices will go up, then a sell-off in the stock may be a good point to buy more calls for cheaper. It would be your call at that point (no pun intended). Here is some theory which may help. An options trader in a bank would say that the value of a call option can go up for two reasons: The VIX index is a measure of the levels of implied volatility, so you could intuitively say that when you trade options you are taking a view on two components: the underlying stock, and the level of the VIX index. Importantly, as you get closer to the expiry date this second effect diminishes: big jumps up in the VIX will produce smaller increases in the value of the call option. Taking this point to its limit, at maturity the value of the call option is only dependent on the price of the underlying stock. An options trader would say that the vega of a call option decreases as it gets closer to expiry. A consequence of this is that if pure options traders are naturally less inclined to buy and hold to expiry (because otherwise they would really just be taking a view on the stock price rather than the stock price & the implied volatility surface). Trading options without thinking too much about implied volatities is of course a valid strategy -- maybe you just use them because you will automatically have a mechanism which limits losses on your positions. But I am just trying to give you an impression of the bigger picture.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "294a723f083a1c211ead746ce4b415f6", "text": "Options reflect expectations about the underlying asset, and options are commonly priced using the Black-Scholes model: N(d1) and N(d2) are probability functions, S is the spot (current) price of the asset, K is the strike price, r is the risk free rate, and T-t represents time to maturity. Without getting into the mathematics, it suffices to say that higher volatility or expectation of volatility increases the perceived riskiness of the asset, so call options are priced lower and put options are priced higher. Think about it intuitively. If the stock is more likely to go downwards, then there's an increased chance that the call option expires worthless, so call options must be priced lower to accommodate the relative change in expected value of the option. Puts are priced similarly, but they move inversely with respect to call option prices due to Put-Call parity. So if call option prices are falling, then put option prices are rising (Note, however, that call prices falling does not cause put prices to rise. The inverse relationship exists because of changes in the underlying factors and how pricing works.) So the option action signifies that the market believes the stock is headed lower (in the given time frame). That does not mean it will go lower, and option traders assume risk whenever they take a particular position. Bottom line: gotta do your own homework! Best of luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "495c342f3cfec0dc4d35802cfc0b6011", "text": "An option gives you the option rather than the obligation to buy (or sell) the underlying so you don't have to exercise you can just let the option expire (so long it doesn't have an automatic expiry). After expiration the option is worthless if it is out of the money but other than that has no hangover. Option prices normally drop as the time value of the option decays. An option has two values associated with it; time value and exercise value. Far out of the money (when the price of the underlying is far from the strike price on the losing side) options only have time value whereas deep in the money options (as yours seems to be) has some time value as well as the intrinsic value of the right to buy (sell) at a low (high) price and then sell (buy) the underlying. The time value of the option comes from the possibility that the price of the underlying will move (further) in your favour and make you more money at expiry. As expiry closes it is less likely that there will be a favourable mood so this value declines which can cause prices to move sharply after a period of little to no revaluing. Up to now what I have said applies to both OTC and traded options but exchange traded options have another level of complexity in their trading; because there are fewer traders in the options market the size of trade at which you can move the market is much lower. On the equities markets you may need to trade millions of shares to have be substantial enough to significantly move a price, on the options markets it could be thousands or even hundreds. If these are European style options (which sounds likely) and a single trading entity was holding a large number of the exchange traded options and now thinks that the price will move significantly against them before expiry their sell trade will move the market lower in spite of the options being in the money. Their trade is based on their supposition that by the time they can exercise the option the price will be below the strike and they will lose money. They have cashed out at a price that suited them and limited what they will lose if they are right about the underlying. If I am not correct in my excise style assumption (European) I may need more details on the trade as it seems like you should just exercise now and take the profit if it is that far into the money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd2294bc0725eaa66e949c23084be42a", "text": "I'm sorry, but your math is wrong. You are not equally likely to make as much money by waiting for expiration. Share prices are moving constantly in both directions. Very rarely does any stock go either straight up or straight down. Consider a stock with a share price of $12 today. Perhaps that stock is a bad buy, and in 1 month's time it will be down to $10. But the market hasn't quite wised up to this yet, and over the next week it rallies up to $15. If you bought a European option (let's say an at-the-money call, expiring in 1 month, at $12 on our start date), then you lost. Your option expired worthless. If you bought an American option, you could have exercised it when the share price was at $15 and made a nice profit. Keep in mind we are talking about exactly the same stock, with exactly the same history, over exactly the same time period. The only difference is the option contract. The American option could have made you money, if you exercised it at any time during the rally, but not the European option - you would have been forced to hold onto it for a month and finally let it expire worthless. (Of course that's not strictly true, since the European option itself can be sold while it is in the money - but eventually, somebody is going to end up holding the bag, nobody can exercise it until expiration.) The difference between an American and European option is the difference between getting N chances to get it right (N being the number of days 'til expiration) and getting just one chance. It should be easy to see why you're more likely to profit with the former, even if you can't accurately predict price movement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16e013dd52ed1d3c03a5c5567b83da8c", "text": "\"I'm guessing since I don't know the term, but it sounds like you're asking about the technique whereby a loan is used to gather multiple years' gift allowance into a single up-front transfer. For the subsequent N years, the giver pays the installments on the loan for the recipient, at a yearly amount small enough to avoid triggering Gift Tax. You still have to pay income tax on the interest received (even though you're giving them the money to pay you), and you must charge a certain minimum interest (or more accurately, if you charge less than that they tax you as if the loan was earning that minimum). Historically this was used by relatively wealthy folks, since the cost of lawyers and filing the paperwork and bookkeeping was high enough that most folks never found out this workaround existed, and few were moving enough money to make those costs worthwhile. But between the \"\"Great Recession\"\" and the internet, this has become much more widely known, and there are services which will draw up standard paperwork, have a lawyer sanity-check it for your local laws, file the official mortgage lien (not actually needed unless you want the recipient to also be able to write off the interest on their taxes), and provide a payments-processing service if you do expect part or all of the loan to be paid by the recipient. Or whatever subset of those services you need. I've done this. In my case it cost me a bit under $1000 to set up the paperwork so I could loan a friend a sizable chunk of cash and have it clearly on record as a loan, not a gift. The amount in question was large enough, and the interpersonal issues tricky enough, that this was a good deal for us. Obviously, run the numbers. Websearching \"\"family loan\"\" will find much more detail about how this works and what it can and can't do, along with services specializing in these transactions. NOTE: If you are actually selling something, such as your share of a house, this dance may or may not make sense. Again, run the numbers, and if in doubt get expert advice rather than trusting strangers on the web. (Go not to the Internet for legal advice, for it shall say both mu and ni.)\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
39371eabca27f90d51170838d7f9a728	What would I miss out on by self insuring my car?	[ { "docid": "5453e13b2b0aef8cdb621aee02f79ded", "text": "\"Convenience, and of course money. In case of an event, you'll have to spend the full worth of money to fix/replace, while if you're insured - you get the insurance to pay for it. It is up to you to decide, if the money saved on the lower premiums worth the risk of paying much more in case of an event. Of course, the cheaper the car the more it makes sense not to pay the premiums. Many people do that. Regarding the bargaining power, I actually think that you would pay less if it is not going through insurance than the bill the insurance pays. I fixed a nasty dent for like $300 at one shop, while at the other they said \"\"It's $1200, but what do you care, your insurance will cover it\"\" (I had $500 deductible, so in the end it was cheaper for me to pay $300 without the insurance at all).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca5705dfe155da557e36956d6e8a7935", "text": "As you suspected, there is more than just car replacement taken care of by insurance (some of them are pointed out in Chad's story:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "227e307c1c3960f56285b5867e472f06", "text": "You lose your agent services. When my wife wrecked our car 3 years ago our agent took care of everything. He got us a rental car, made the arrangements to get it fixed, checked in to see how we were doing, and even helped us set up a second opinion on my wifes wrist surgery. The accident was ruled the fault of the uninsured driver who decided to take off through the red light. But our insurance was the one that covered it all total expenses over 80k. We would have had to eat most of those with out full coverage. Most everything was set up (our rental car, estimates on repair, even her inital consutation with the surgeon) before the investigator had filed her report. Our agents first question was is everyone ok. His second was what can i do to help? He never asked us what happened and was always ahead of our needs in dealing with it. If these things are not important to you, you can probably save quite a bit of money self insuring. But if you are in an accident and unable to do them yourself, do you have someone to do it for you? Do you trust them to handle your business and are you willing to saddle them with the responsibility of dealing with it? To me insurance is less about me and more about my family. It was nice that my agent did all of that for me. I would have been willing to do it myself though. But I am glad to know he is there for my wife if something happens to me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c73e81e82c0d59a519f5f9f268ff482b", "text": "You're trading a fixed liability for an unknown liability. When I graduated from college, I bought a nice used car. Two days later, a deer came out of nowhere, and I hit it going 70 mph on a highway. The damage? $4,500. If I didn't have comprehensive insurance, that would have been a real hit to me financially. For me, I'd rather just pay the modest cost for the comprehensive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "856ebc015448f3a9c82589737b792e91", "text": "\"If you can afford to replace your car, it is more cost effective, on average and over time, not to carry comprehensive and collision insurance. The insurance companies do make a profit, after all. However, you may be able to worry less (\"\"What if someone steals my car if I park here?\"\") with the insurance, and you have the knowledge the you won't have to spend your own money on a new car if something happens to this one, which may help with financial planning.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f4bc315f09f7f8e774ac7636da8583a", "text": "\"One way to look at insurance is that it replaces an unpredictable expenses with a predictable fees. That is, you pay a set monthly amount (\"\"premium\"\") instead of the sudden costs associated with a collision or other covered event. Insurance works as a business, which means they intend to make a substantial profit for providing that service. They put a lot of effort in to measuring probabilities, and carefully set the premiums to get make a steady profit. The odds are in their favor. You have to ask yourself: if X happened tomorrow, how would I feel about the financial impact? Also, how much will it cost me to buy insurance to cover X? If you have a lot of savings, plenty of available credit, a bright financial future, and you take the bus to work anyway, then totaling your car may not be a big deal, money wise. Skip the insurance. If you have no savings, plenty of debt, little prospects for that improving, and you depend on your car to get to work just so you can pay what you already owe, then totaling your car would probably be a big problem for you. Stick with insurance. There is a middle ground. You can adjust your deductible. Raise it as high as you can comfortably handle. You cover the small stuff out of pocket, and save the insurance for the big ticket items. Insurance companies also invest the money they take as premiums, until they pay out a claim. That's not relevant to this discussion, though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "718a647db098e2f1212a0d763e4bc22c", "text": "\"Here's what you do without, on the negative side, just for balance: A bill: When I last had comprehensive insurance, it cost something like 3-4% of the value of the car per annum. (Obviously ymmv enormously but I think that's somewhere near the middle of the range and I'm not especially risky.) So, compared to the total depreciation and running costs of the car, it's actually fairly substantial. Over the say 10 years I might keep that car, it adds up to a fair slice of what it will take to buy a replacement. Financial crisis costs: I don't know about you, but my insurance went up something like 30% in recent years, despite the value-insured and the risk going down, said by the insurer to be due to market turmoil. So, at least hundreds of dollars is just kind of frictional loss, and I'd rather not pay it. Wrangling with the insurer: if you have insurance and a loss, you have to persuade them to pay out, perhaps document the original conditions or the fault, perhaps argue about whether their payment is fair. I've done this for small (non-automotive) claims, and it added up to more hassle than the incident itself. Obviously all insurers will claim they're friendly to deal with but until you actually have a big claim you never know. Moral hazard: I know I'm solely responsible for not having my car crashed or stolen. Somehow that just feels better. Free riders: I've seen people \"\"fudge\"\" their insurance claims so that things that shouldn't have been covered were claimed to be. You might have too. Buy insurance and you're paying for them. Choice: Insurers are typically going to make the decision for you about whether a claim is repairable or not, and in my experience are reluctant or refuse to just give you the cash amount of the claim. (See also, moral hazard.) Do it yourself and you can choose whether to live with it, make a smaller or larger repair, or replace the whole vehicle with a second hand one or a brand new one, or indeed perhaps do without a vehicle. A distraction: Hopefully by the time you've been working for a while, a vehicle is not a really large fraction of your net worth. If you lose 10% of your net worth it's not really nice but - well, you could easily have lost that off the value of your house or your retirement portfolio in recent years. What you actually need to insure is genuinely serious risks that would seriously change your life if they were lost, such as your ability to work. For about the same cost as insuring a $x car, you can insure against $x income every year for the rest of your life, and I think it's far more important. If I have a write-off accident but walk away I'll be perfectly happy. And, obviously, liability insurance is important, because being hit for $millions of liabilities could also have a serious impact. Coverage for mechanical failures: If your 8yo car needs a new transmission, insurance isn't going to help, yet it may cost more than the typical minor collision. Save the money yourself and you can manage those costs out of the same bucket. Flexibility: If you save up to replace your car, but some other crisis occurs, you can choose to put the money towards that. If you have car insurance but you have a family medical thing it's no help. I think the bottom line is: insure against costs you couldn't cope with by yourself. There are people who need a car but can just barely afford it, but if you're fortunate enough not to be in that case you don't really need comprehensive insurance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3da515ba3bcdcaefb1d7248d5ccbe3b7", "text": "Insurance is to mitigate risk you can't handle yourself. (All insurance, not just car insurance.) The expected value of the insurance will always cost more than the expected value of your loss, that's how the insurance company makes money. But sometimes the known fixed cost is better for your ability to sleep at night than the unknown (though likely lower) variable cost. If you were suddenly hit with a bill the size of your car tomorrow, would you be ok? If so, then you can handle the risk yourself and don't need insurance. If not, then you need the insurance. The insurance company sells thousands of policies and it's much easier to predict the number out of 1000 people that will get in an accident tomorrow than the chance that you specifically will get in an accident tomorrow. So they can manage the risk by making a small amount of money from 999/1000 people and buying the other guy a new car.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3d1e961c626c0fa9fd975e9eb47b271", "text": "\"As others have pointed out, it's all about a fixed, small cost versus the potential of a large cost. If you have insurance, you know you will pay a fixed amount per month. There is a 100% probability that you will have to pay this premium. If you don't have insurance, there is a large chance that you will have no cost in any given month, and a small chance that you will have a large cost. Like my home-owners insurance costs me about $50 per month. If I didn't have insurance and my house burned down, I would be out something like $100,000. What's the chance that my house will burn down this month? Very small. But I'd rather pay $50 and not have to worry about it. On the other hand, I just bought a filing cabinet for $160 and the store offered me an \"\"extended warranty\"\" for something like $20 a year. What's the probability that some accident will happen that damages my filing cabinet? Pretty small. Even if it did, I think I could handle shelling out $160. I can imagine my stomach in knots and lying awake at nights worrying about the possibility of losing $100,000 or finding myself homeless. I can't imagine lying awake at nights worrying about losing $160 or being force to stuff my files under the bed. I'll take my chances. When I was young and had even less money than I have now, I bought cars that cost me a thousand dollars or. Even poor as I was, I knew that if the car was totaled I could dig up the cash to buy another. It wasn't worth paying the insurance premium. These days I'm driving a car that cost me $6,000. I have collision and comprehensive insurance, but I think it's debatable. I bought the car with cash to begin with, and if I had to I could scrape up the cash to replace it. Especially considering that my last payment for my daughter's college tuition is due next month and then that expense is gone. :-)\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7288244b1e70bb0b665ab9461c33d128", "text": "While I can't say how it is in the Philippines, my wife the insurance broker leads me to believe that individual insurance is more expensive than group coverages in the US almost always. So much so that people will go to great extents to form any sort of business just to insure themselves. If however it is cheaper, can't you simply opt out of your employer's plan? If you can opt out, will your employer give you any of the money they aren't paying for your insurance? If you can't opt out, or if you paycheck doesn't grow, I can't see why you would want additional coverage especially at such a young age. Should you lose your job in the near future and you worry about, go get the insurance then. EDIT One big advantage is if you get personal insurance, you might need to get an exam to qualify, and it is likely the younger you are the better you will qualify. But again, you already have insurance that covers you so I would advise keeping the group policy is probably better.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05147dad67bdff5c69cd2475097e7d8c", "text": "The answer to your question: I don't think it's being irresponsible at all. You are at least saving for your retirement, some people aren't even doing that. My advice? Replace the car with a cheaper car that you absolutely adore. $1000/month is a lot to pay for a car that's just a car. Sell yours, take the resultant money and buy a cheaper car outright. But buy something fun. If you're going to enjoy driving when you get in your car, really enjoy it. I suggest a used Miata, or a BMW 325i, the E30 version from the late 80s. Rear wheel drive, light, responsive, and practical. And cheap as chips to fix as well!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc9736300627a5a9469e0cc63d941993", "text": "As someone who has worked for both an insurance carrier and an insurance agent, the reason people buy insurance is two fold: to spread risk out, and to get the benefits (when applicable) of approaching risk as a group. What you are really doing when you buy insurance is you are buying in to a large group of people who are sharing risk. You put money in that will help people when they take a loss, and in exchange get a promise of having your losses covered. There is an administrative fee taken by the company that runs the group in order to cover their costs of doing business and their profits that they get for running the group well (or losses they take if they run it poorly.) Some insurances are for profit, some are non-profit; all work on the principle of spreading risk around though and taking risk as a larger group. So let's take a closer look at each of the advantages you get from participating in insurance. The biggest and most obvious is the protection from catastrophic loss. Yes, you could self-insure with a group size of one, by saving your money and having no overhead (other than your time and the time value of your money) but that has a cost in itself and also doesn't cover you against risk up front if you aren't already independently wealthy. A run of bad luck could wipe you out entirely since you don't have a large group to spread the risk around. The same thing can still happen to insurance companies as well when the group as a whole takes major losses, but it's less likely to occur because there are more rare things that have to go wrong. You pay an administrative overhead for the group to be run for you, but you have less exposure to your own risks in exchange for a small premium. Another significant but less visible advantage is the benefit of being part of a large group. Insurance companies represent a large group of people and lots of business, so they can get better rates on dealing with recovering from losses. They can negotiate for better health care rates or better repair rates or cheaper replacement parts. This can potentially save more than the administrative overhead and profit that they take off the top, even when compared to self-insuring. There is an element of gambling to it, but there are also very real financial benefits to having predictable costs. The value of that predictability (and the lesser need for liquid assets) is what makes insurance worth it for many people. The value of this group benefit does decrease a lot as the value of the insurance coverage (the amount it pays out) decreases. Insurance for minor losses has a much smaller impact on liquidity and is much easier to self insure. Cheaper items that have insurance also tend to be high risk items, so the costs tend to be very high relative to the amount of protection. If you are financially able, it may make more sense to self-insure in these cases, particularly if you tend to be more cautious. It may make sense for those who are more prone to accidents with their devices to buy insurance, but this selection bias also drives the cost up further. Generally, the reason to buy insurance on something like a cellphone is because you expect you will break it. You are going to end up paying for an entire additional phone over time anyway and most such policies stop paying out after the first replacement anyway. The reason why people buy the coverage anyway, even when it really isn't in their best interest is due to two factors: being risk averse, as base64 pointed out, and also being generally bad at dealing with large numbers. On the risk averse side, they think of how much they are spending on the item (even if it is less compared to large items like cars or houses) and don't want to lose that. On the bad at dealing with large numbers side, they don't think about the overall cost of the coverage and don't read the fine print as to what they are actually getting coverage for. (This is the same reason that you always see prices one cent under the dollar.) People often don't really subconsciously get that they are paying more even if they would be able to eat the loss, so they pay what feels like a small amount to offset a large risk. The risk of loss is a higher fear than the known small, easy payment that keeps the risk away and the overall value proposition isn't even considered.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78becc0932c47c865cd73ac9b9f78f5b", "text": "The moment that you start to rent your car to strangers you are talking about using your car as a business. Will it be financially advantageous? If you can convince somebody to rent your vehicle for more than your required monthly payments then it might be. Of course you have to determine what would be the true cost of ownership for you. It could include your auto loan, and insurance, but you would be saving on the garage costs. Of course if you don't have it rented 100% of the time you will still have some costs. Your insurance company will need to know about your plan. They charge based on the risk. If you aren't honest about the situation they won't cover you if something goes wrong. The local government may want to know. They charge different car registration fees for businesses. If there are business taxes they will want that. Taxes. you are running a business so everybody from the federal governemnt to the local government may want a cut. Plus you will have to depreciate the value of the item. Turning the item from a personal use item to a business item can have tax issues. If you don't own it 100% the lender may also have concerns about making sure their collateral survives. Is it safe? and from the comments to the question : Should I do a contract or something that would protect me? Nope. it isn't safe unless you do have a contract. Of course that contract will have to be drawn up by a lawyer to make sure it protects you from theft, negligence, breach of contract.... You will have to be able to not just charge rent, but be able to repossess the car if they don't return it on time. You will have to be able to evaluate if the renter is trustworthy, or you may find your car is in far worse shape if you can even get it back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4dcb9c144a41a17c85ab1b22a75429d", "text": "One reason is that insurance gives you tranquility. Without insurance, you live with the uncertainty of not knowing if/when disaster is going to strike. Insurance allows you to trade this uncertainty for regular monthly/yearly payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19565826fefff8930651d68899ab5bd6", "text": "\"Discounting premiums based on some past history is not unique to auto policies. Other insurers will discount premiums based on past claims history they just don't shout about it as a marketing means to attract customers. Life insurance is underwritten based on your health history; if you want to consider your \"\"preferred\"\" underwriting status based on your clear health history a \"\"discount based on your healthy habits\"\" you're free to do so. All sorts of lines of insurance use all sorts of things to determine an underwriting classes. The fact that auto insurers trumpet specific discounts does not mean the same net effect is not available on other lines of coverage. Most states require auto rates and discounts to be filed and approved with some state regulator, some regulatory bodies even require that certain discounts exist. You could likely negotiate with your business insurance underwriters about a better rate and if the underwriters saw fit they could give you a discount. Auto insurers can offer discounts but are generally beholden to whatever rate sheet is on file with the applicable regulatory body. For the person who downvoted, here's a link to a spreadsheet outlining one of the CA department of insurance allowable rating factor sheets related to auto insurance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38c51f47de3332a794c3c1ced7280657", "text": "Not all miles carry the same amount of risk. A survey by Progressive indicated that accidents are most likely to occur within 5 miles of home, and 77% of accidents occur within 15 miles of home. Only 1% of accidents occurred 50 or more miles from home. That's from 2002, but it seems unlikely to have changed much. Since the miles closest to your home carry more risk, they cost more, and low-mileage discounts reflect that. There are per-mile insurance options in a few states which could save you money, but they do constant monitoring via that ODB2 telematics device, and other insurers offer discounts if you accept their monitoring either in perpetuity or for a limited period of time. Without monitoring, insurers don't know if that 4,000 miles of driving is spread into a few mid-day trips each week, or maybe you're doing all that driving from midnight to 4am on weekends (fatalities far more likely), or from 5-7pm during weekdays (accidents far more likely). Personally, I save ~10% by being a 'low-mileage' driver, and am currently in the middle of a 90-day monitoring, so might go lower, but given that accidents are far more likely close to home, 10% feels pretty significant and appropriate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e401a8ff82d95f592eab06973e952461", "text": "While this question is old and I generally agree with the answers given I think there's another angle that needs a little illuminating: insurance. If you go with an 84 month loan your car will likely be worth less than the amount owed for substantially all of the entire 84 month loan period; this will be exacerbated if you put zero down and include the taxes and fees in the amount borrowed. Your lender will require you to carry full comprehensive/collision/liability coverage likely with a low maximum deductible. While the car is underwater it will probably also be a good idea to carry gap insurance because the last thing you want to do is write a check to your lender to shore up the loan to value deficit if the thing is totaled. These long term car loans (I've seen as high as 96 months) are a bear when it comes to depreciation and related insurance costs. There is more to this decision than the interest calculation. Obviously, if you had the cash at the front of this decision presumably you'll have the cash later to pay off the loan at your convenience. But while the loan is outstanding there are costs beyond interest to consider.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0f27d3d497769d2b2fda5a0d8869bff", "text": "If you have no credit history but you have a job, buying an inexpensive used car should still be doable with only a marginally higher interest rate on the car. This can be offset with a cosigner, but it probably isn't that big of a deal if you purchase a car that you can pay off in under a year. The cost of insurance for a car is affected by your credit score in many locations, so regardless you should also consider selling your other car rather than maintaining and insuring it while it's not your primary mode of transportation. The main thing to consider is that the terms of the credit will not be advantageous, so you should pay the full balance on any credit cards each month to not incur high interest expenses. A credit card through a credit union is advantageous because you can often negotiate a lower rate after you've established the credit with them for a while (instead of closing the card and opening a new credit card account with a lower rate--this impacts your credit score negatively because the average age of open accounts is a significant part of the score. This advice is about the same except that it will take longer for negative marks like missed payments to be removed from your report, so expect 7 years to fully recover from the bad credit. Again, minimizing how long you have money borrowed for will be the biggest benefit. A note about cosigners: we discourage people from cosigning on other people's loans. It can turn out badly and hurt a relationship. If someone takes that risk and cosigns for you, make every payment on time and show them you appreciate what they have done for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "400acd072aaf20b5a499893d218bb5d5", "text": "The car has value, but it is still a depreciating asset. You're paying far more to rent a space to park the car than you are to own and drive it if you look beyond the initial term of your loan. You could buy a space to keep the car, but at $225,000 for a permanent spot, renting is a much better deal. Would you travel home as frequently if you didn't have the fixed cost of a parking space rental giving you incentive to make the most of the car since you're paying for it either way? My additional question is whether the freedom to travel home on a whim is worth more than the financial freedom you would gain by investing the money for the long term. I don't think it's irresponsible if the short term freedom contributes significantly to your sense of well-being, but even if it isn't entirely sunk cost, the majority of it is. The only way you can really know whether it's worth it to you would be to park the car at home for a month or two to see if you can live without it. Fortunately you don't lose much money in this experiment, since you're only paying 1.9% interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a144d63955b35b8c135bb698e0e8128", "text": "Regarding auto insurance, you have to look at the different parts. In the United Sates most states do require a level of specific coverage for all drivers. That is to make sure that if you are at fault there is money available to pay the victims. That payment may be for damage to their car or other property, but it also covers medical costs. Many policies also cover you if the other driver doesn't have insurance. The policy that covers the loss of the vehicle is required if you have a loan or are leasing the car. Somebody else owns it while there is a loan, so they can and do require you to pay to protect the vehicle. If there i no loan you don't have to have that portion of a policy. Other parts such as towing, roadside assistance, and rental cars replacement may be required by the insurance standards for your state, or might be almost impossible to drop because all insurance companies include it to stay competitive with their competition. Dropping the non-required parts of the coverage is acceptable when you don't have a loan. Some people do drop it to save money. But that does mean you are self insuring. If you can afford to self insure a new car, great. The interesting thing is that some people have more than enough assets to self inure the non-required part of auto insurance. But then they realize that they do need to up their umbrella liability insurance. This is to protect them from somebody deciding that their resources make them a tempting target when they are involved in a collision.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6bf11b0627d73cbea9659cfedae9210", "text": "\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "462cd9e75b54c801c994b441e5ba4165", "text": "While paying off your debt quickly is obviously desirable it is simply not going to be possible. Even with tight budgeting I think you will struggle to put more than £500 or so per month towards your debt. I would keep trying to move the highest interest debt onto something cheaper, be it a loan, a balance transfer credit card ( http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/credit-cards/balance-transfer-credit-cards#nofees ) etc. It is also worth looking at your current credit cards more carefully. Sometimes you may be able to get a balance transfer deal on an existing card by talking to the card issuer, then shuffle your debt around to take advantage of it ( http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/credit-cards/cut-credit-card-interest ) Some think it's taboo but in your position I would also be seriously considering if you have any friends and family who can lend you money at a less crippling interest rate.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3ff3761ee5c032337d7ba1a25ffad7e7	Can Mutual Funds Invest In the Start Up Market?	[ { "docid": "5332ab4fcf9969669a3adebdc5e92194", "text": "\"Bloomberg suggests that two Fidelity funds hold preferred shares of Snapchat Inc.. Preferred shares hold more in common with bonds than with ordinary stock as they pay a fixed dividend, have lower liquidity, and don't have voting rights. Because of this lower liquidity they are not usually offered for sale on the market. Whether these funds are allowed to hold such illiquid assets is more a question for their strategy document than the law; it is completely legal for a company to hold a non-marketable interest in another, even if the company is privately held as Snapchat is. The strategy documents governing what the fund is permitted to hold, however, may restrict ownership either banning non-market holdings or restricting the percentage of assets held in illiquid instruments. Since IPO is very costly, funds like these who look to invest in new companies who have not been through IPO yet are a very good way of taking a diversified position in start-ups. Since they look to invest directly rather than through the market they are an attractive, low cost way for start-ups to generate funds to grow. The fund deals directly with the owners of the company to buy its shares. The markdown of the stock value reflects the accounting principle of marking to market (MTM) financial assets that do not have a trade price so as to reflect their fair value. This markdown implies that Fidelity believe that the total NPV of the company's net assets is lower than they had previously calculated. This probably reflects a lack of revenue streams coming into the business in the case of Snapchat. edit: by the way, since there is no market for start-up \"\"stocks\"\" pre-IPO my heart sinks a little every time I read the title of this question. I'm going to be sad all day now :(.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1ac350ec5c33d3492610d3b014ba7a37", "text": "\"Yes, you can. You could either go through brokerages like Ameritrade or fund companies like Fidelity or Vanguard. Yes there are minimums depending on the fund where some retail funds may waive a minimum if you sign up for an \"\"Automatic Investment Plan\"\" and some of the lower cost funds may have higher initial investment as Vanguard's Admiral share class is different from Investor for example.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bd8572aed467d1f9e285837d5171f92", "text": "You could use a stock-only ISA and invest in Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). ETFs are managed mutual funds that trade on open exchanges in the same manner as stocks. This changes the specific fund options you have open to you, but there are so many ETFs at this point that any sector you want to invest in is almost certainly represented.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a239311eb2a819b7aadbbc3c95fa014", "text": "The very term 'market conditions' is subjective and needs context. There are 'market conditions' that favor buying (such as post crash) or market conditions that favor selling (such as the peak of a bubble). Problem with mutual funds is you can't really pick these points yourself; because you're effectively outsourcing that to a firm. If you're tight on time and are looking for weekly update on the economy a good solution is to identify a reputable economist (with a solid track record) and simply follow their commentary via blog or newsletter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "495225d04ffeab031a08f801216b4612", "text": "When you are starting out using a balanced fund can be quite advantageous. A balanced fund is represents a diversified portfolio in single fund. The primary advantage of using a balanced fund is that with it being a single fund it is easier to meet the initial investment minimum. Later once you have enough to transition to a portfolio of diversified funds you would sell the fund and buy the portfolio. With a custom portfolio, you will be better able to target your risk level and you might also be able to use lower cost funds. The other item to check is do any of the funds that you might be interested in for the diversified portfolio have lower initial investment option if you can commit to adding money on a specified basis (assuming that you are able to). Also there might be an ETF version of a mutual fund and for those the initial investment amount is just the share price. The one thing to be aware of is make sure that you can buy enough shares that you can rebalance (holding a single share makes it hard to sell some gain when rebalancing). I would stay away from individual stocks until you have a much larger portfolio, assuming that you want to invest with a diversified portfolio. The reason being that it takes a lot more money to create a diversified portfolio out of individual stocks since you have to buy whole shares. With a mutual fund or ETF, your underlying ownership of can be fractional with no issue as each fund share is going to map into a fraction of the various companies held and with mutual funds you can buy fractional shares of the fund itself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3ead6164c50ccbd9cdb1398b9d611c2", "text": "I don't know if this is exactly what you're looking for but Seedrs sorta fits what you're looking for. Private companies can raise money through funding rounds on Seedrs website. It wouldn't necessarily be local companies though. I've only recently found it myself so not sure if it has a uk or European slant to it. Personally I think it's a very interesting concept, private equity through crowd funding.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab3fa3b48b665dad5943843d32607325", "text": "You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index). Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "793ccb71f403b6df10f6d9e5aeef7d72", "text": "Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "793b5be391b5c0601b8ea3ed19ca1fb5", "text": "\"I assume that mutual funds are being discussed here. As Bryce says, open-ended funds are bought from the mutual fund company and redeemed from the fund company. Except in very rare circumstances, they exist only as bits in the fund company's computers and not as share certificates (whether paper or electronic) that can be delivered from the selling broker to the buying broker on a stock exchange. Effectively, the fund company is the sole market maker: if you want to buy, ask the fund company at what price it will sell them to you (and it will tell you the answer only after 4 pm that day when a sale at that price is no longer possible unless you committed to buy, say, 100 shares and authorized the fund company to withdraw the correct amount from your bank account or other liquid asset after the price was known). Ditto if you want to sell: the mutual fund company will tell you what price it will give you only after 4 pm that day and you cannot sell at that price unless you had committed to accept whatever the company was going to give you for your shares (or had said \"\"Send me $1000 and sell as many shares of mine as are needed to give me proceeds of $1000 cash.\"\")\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afc9e163be701e521007a05232e59cc0", "text": "I am not entirely sold on investing in start-up companies, but I really like the idea of crowdfunding investments. I've been an investor at [LendingClub](https://www.lendingclub.com/) for 10 months now and am quite happy so far. For those of you who don't know, Lending Club is where you can crowdfund consumer loans. I'm also very interested in [Solar Mosaic](https://solarmosaic.com/). Once their quiet period ends I am planning on investing in solar projects through them. Of course I'll want to see some data related to their risk and returns, but I love the idea of earning a return from funding solar projects. I think that crowdfunding allows you to invest in areas that are normally off-limits to those of us who aren't rich. At the very least these investments offer a nice source of portfolio diversification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e5bb05701d5b40caffbc5d98be9d723", "text": "Domini offers such a fund. It might suit you, or it might include things you wish to avoid. I'm not judging your goals, but would suggest that it might be tough to find a fund that has the same values as you. If you choose individual stocks, you might have to do a lot of reading, and decide if it's all or none, i.e. if a company seems to do well, but somehow has an tiny portion in a sector you don't like, do you dismiss them? In the US, Costco, for example, is a warehouse club, and treats employees well. A fair wage, benefits, etc. But they have a liquor store at many locations. Absent the alcohol, would you research every one of their suppliers?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ac3e8aebe0e7a8e86731ab7190d5925", "text": "How do (index and active) mutual funds trade? Do they buy stocks as soon as a I buy a share in the mutual fund, or do they have fixed times they trade, such as once every week/month/quarter? Is it theoretical possible for someone to front run mutual funds, if someone holds individual stocks? Let's say an institutional investor creates an order of $100m in a mutual fund, how likely can a broker, which holds a fraction of the fund's portfolio, front run and take advantage of that trade? It is more likely to front run that fund if it's an active small cap fund, but how likely is it to front run trades for index funds?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4ed4fb03c9a393b737c5da1e8f0a6fe", "text": "No chance. First off, unless the company provides audited financials (and they don't from what I can tell), there is no way I'm tinkering with a bunch of small business owners. Transparency is a substantial part of investing and this actually exempts or excludes these companies, from what I can tell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dbae56ad4aca8a1caeb2c6a7ab08472", "text": "\"Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say \"\"An ETF is a mutual fund that...\"\" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. \"\"A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors.\"\" As a matter of practice, when people say \"\"mutual fund\"\" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b58cf19afffa931f223dcdf2e6a57a6", "text": "At this time I would say that the electric car industry as a whole is too new to be able to invest in it as a sector. There are only a handful of companies that focus solely on electric cars to create a moderately diverse portfolio, let alone a mutual fund. You can invest in mutual funds that include EV stocks as part of an auto sector or clean energy play, for example, but there's just not enough for an EV-only fund at this point. At this point, perhaps the best you can do if you want an exclusively EV portfolio is add some exposure to the companies that are the biggest players in the market and review the market periodically to see if any additional investments could be made to improve your diversification. Look at EV-only car makers, battery makers, infrastructure providers, etc. to get a decent balance of stocks. I would not put any more than 10% of your entire investment portfolio into any one stock, and not more than 20% or so in this sector.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f733c669f45268778a0bccf62fb4aab9", "text": "Vanguard has a lot of mutual fund offerings. (I have an account there.) Within the members' section they give indications of the level of risk/reward for each fund.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2a11551f5794ae1b4efb231290de4b08	US tax for a resident NRI	[ { "docid": "ec3d14f8d9e15d3aab6f98d3a9cf46fd", "text": "If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e45082ebd31646e9466456f04258ad79", "text": "\"Please declare everything you earn in India as well as the total amount of assets (it's called FBAR). The penalties for not declaring is jail time no matter how small the amount (and lots of ordinary people every 2-3 years are regularly sent to jail for not declaring such income). It's taken very seriously by the IRS - and any Indian bank who has an office in the US or does business here, can be asked by IRS to provide any bank account details for you. You will get deductions for taxes already paid to a foreign country due to double taxation, so there won't be any additional taxes because income taxes in US are on par or even lower than that in India. Using tricks (like transferring ownership to your brother) may not be worth it. Note: you pay taxes only when you realize gains anyway - both in India or here, so why do you want to take such hassles. If you transfer to your brother, it will be taxed only until you hold them. Make sure you have exact dates of gains between the date you came to US and the date you \"\"gifted\"\" to your brother. As long as you clearly document that the stocks transferred to your brother was a gift and you have no more claims on them, it should be ok, but best to consult a CPA in the US. If you have claims on them, example agreement that you will repurchase them, then you will still continue to pay taxes. If you sell your real estate investments in India, you have to pay tax on the gains in the US (and you need proof of the original buying cost and your sale). If you have paid taxes on the real estate gains in India, then you can get deduction due to double tax avoidance treaty. No issues in bringing over the capital from India to US.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8de35a507e65ca679887497e347f9d74", "text": "I keep visiting Dubai Not sure what kind of work it is, assuming it regular job. For the period mentioned above I was out of India for more than 182 days, If you were out of India for more than 182 days in a given financial year then you would NRI for tax purposes. till date I have not transferred any money from Dubai to my India account. Whether you have transferred the money or not is not relevant for tax purposes. Your status [NRI / Resident] is relevant. Do I need to declare the income I have earned in Dubai? No you are not required to as your status is NRI. You are required to file a return on the income [Salary/Interest/gains/etc] accruing in India. Do I need to change my residential status ? Not sure where you are wanting to change this. Will the income I have earned in Dubai is taxable ? As you are NRI, the income earned outside of India is not taxable in India. From a tax point of view, it does not matter whether you keep the funds in Dubai or transfer it back to India. Edit: The Income Tax rules are not very clear if your wife can claim for her father-in-law. Best consult a CA. For quite a few regulations, Wife's father-in-law are treated at par with father.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "525af4c7a0373197b4a72adee488f3df", "text": "The US will let you keep as much money as you want to within its borders regardless of your citizenship. You'll owe capital gains tax in the US unless you're subject to a tax treaty (which you would probably make as an election in the year of the transaction). I don't know if India has any rules about how it governs its citizens' foreign assets, but the US requires citizens to file a form annually declaring foreign accounts over $10,000. You may be subject to additional Indian taxes if India taxes global income like the US does.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "819197acdc0e88afc44350dcccd999eb", "text": "\"I believe you have to file a tax return, because state tax refund is considered income effectively connected with US trade or business, and the 1040NR instructions section \"\"Who Must File\"\" includes people who were engaged in trade or business in the US and had a gross income. You won't end up having to pay any taxes as the income is less than your personal exemption of $4050.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c69177e47bd21ad594a45558a393d9f", "text": "Assuming that the NRE (NonResident External) account is in good standing, that is, you are still eligible to have an NRE account because your status as a NonResident of India has not changed in the interim, you can transfer money back from your NRE account to your US accounts without any problems. But be aware that you bear the risk of getting back a much smaller amount than you invested in the NRE account because of devaluation of the Indian Rupee (INR). NRE accounts are held in INR, and whatever amounts (in INR) that you choose to withdraw will be converted to US$ at the exchange rate then applicable. Depending on whether it is the Indian bank that is doing the conversion and sending money by wire to your US bank, or you are depositing a cheque in INR in your US bank, you may be charged miscellaneous service fees also. To answer a question that you have not asked as yet, there is no US tax on the transfer of the money. The interest paid on your deposits into the NRE account are not taxable income to you in India, but are taxable income to you in the US, and so I hope that you have been declaring this income each year on Schedule B of your income tax return, and also reporting that you have accounts held abroad, as required by US law. See for example, this question and its answer and also this question and its answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c409a1afbc53fbc1ed1a0b689ab8c03a", "text": "Assuming you are Resident Indian. As per Indian Income Tax As per section 208 every person whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000, shall pay his tax in advance in the form of “advance tax”. Thus, any taxpayer whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000 has to pay his tax in advance by the due dates prescribed in this regard. However, as per section 207, a resident senior citizen (i.e., an individual of the age of 60 years or above) not having any income from business or profession is not liable to pay advance tax. In other words, if a person satisfies the following conditions, he will not be liable to pay advance tax: Hence only self assessment tax need to be paid without any interest. Refer the full guideline on Income tax website", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7613eabc169fad3fafc9d947392f98d", "text": "The IRS' primary reference Pub 519 Tax Guide for Aliens -- current year online (current and previous years downloadable in PDF from the Forms&Pubs section of the website) says NO: Students and business apprentices from India. A special rule applies .... You can claim the standard deduction .... Use Worksheet 5-1 to figure your standard deduction. If you are married and your spouse files a return and itemizes deductions, you cannot take the standard deduction. Note the last sentence, which is clearly an exception to the 'India rule', which is already an exception to the general rule that nonresident filers never get the standard deduction. Of course this is the IRS' interpretation of the law (which is defined to include ratified treaties); if you think they are wrong, you could claim the deduction anyway and when they assess the additional tax (and demand payment) take it to US Tax Court -- but I suspect the legal fees will cost you more than the marginal tax on $6300, even under Tax Court's simplified procedures for small cases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ac393eb7139b67ca2c0f1a3581ef89c", "text": "Assuming you are NRI, any income you earn is not taxable in India whether you transfer to India or not. Is this amount taxable in India? If yes then how much I have to pay as tax. No it is not taxable. How to fixed Deposit this money from Saudi Arabia or from India through my husband or parents? You can open Fixed Deposits in your name or your husband/parents name. It is your choice. Some Banks allow you to operate an NRE account via Internet If I put this money in 2-3 FD's (like 5 lakh one FD and 2 or 3 lakh other FD's) then the interest earned is taxable? Interest is taxable. Can I withdraw any FD without maturity if needed in urgent? That depends on type of FD you have opened. Some allow withdrawal before maturity with a penalty other don't allow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1821d489190ca4b39fdd9e8a953ad6d1", "text": "\"What do you mean by \"\"Canadian income\"\"? Was it income paid to you as wages for the job you did in the US? Or rental/interest income in Canada? If the former - then it doesn't go to NEC, it goes to the main part of the return. If the latter - it doesn't appear on your NR return at all. Yes, it is to validate your residency status. It has no other effect on your taxes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c2718faab7ee5008d2257c0669ca216", "text": "\"I'm assuming that by saying \"\"I'm a US resident now\"\" you're referring to the residency determination for tax purposes. Should I file a return in the US even though there is no income here ? Yes. US taxes its residents for tax purposes (which is not the same as residents for immigration or other purposes) on worldwide income. If yes, do I get credits for the taxes I paid in India. What form would I need to submit for the same ? I am assuming this form has to be issued by IT Dept in India or the employer in India ? The IRS doesn't require you to submit your Indian tax return with your US tax return, however they may ask for it later if your US tax return comes under examination. Generally, you claim foreign tax credits using form 1116 attached to your tax return. Specifically for India there may also be some clause in the Indo-US tax treaty that might be relevant to you. Treaty claims are made using form 8833 attached to your tax return, and I suggest having a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) prepare such a return. Although no stock transactions were done last year, should I still declare the value of total stocks I own ? If so what is an approx. tax rate or the maximum tax rate. Yes, this is done using form 8938 attached to your tax return and also form 114 (FBAR) filed separately with FinCEN. Pay attention: the forms are very similar with regard to the information you provide on them, but they go to different agencies and have different filing requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As to tax rates - that depends on the types of stocks and how you decide to treat them. Generally, the tax rate for PFIC is very high, so that if any of your stocks are classified as PFIC - you'd better talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about how to deal with them. Non-PFIC stocks are dealt with the same as if they were in the US, unless you match certain criteria described in the instructions to form 5471 (then a different set of rules apply, talk to a licensed tax adviser). I will be transferring most of my stock to my father this year, will this need to be declared ? Yes, using form 709. Gift tax may be due. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). I have an apartment in India this year, will this need to be declared or only when I sell the same later on ? If there's no income from it - then no (assuming you own it directly in your own name, for indirect ownership - yes, you do), but when you sell you will have to declare the sale and pay tax on the gains. Again, treaty may come into play, talk to a tax adviser. Also, be aware of Section 121 exclusion which may make it more beneficial for you to sell earlier.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b06cf61d9da1756b77f18ecfb634e214", "text": "You do not need to report gifts from US residents (US citizens/green card holders/tax residents due to length of stay) since filing gift tax return is their responsibility. In case of foreigners you need to report gifts in excess of $100K. In any case, transfers between spouses are exempt from gift tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "012f605227ef0d892bc1b5ebfac70818", "text": "From an Indian Tax point of view, you can bring back all the assets acquired during the period you were NRI back to India tax free. Subject to a 7 years period. i.e. all the assets / funds / etc should be brought back to India within 7 years. It would still be treated as There are certain conditions / paperwork. Please consult a CA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "746c2df9ea5a586fc65a71a374c66c25", "text": "I have some more inputs to investigate: India has dual tax avoidance treaty signed with european countries so that NRIs dont pay tax in both countries. Please check if India has some agreement with Swiss Also for freelance job that is delivered from India, u need to make sure where you have to pay taxes as you are still in India so the term NRI will not hold good here. Also, if Swiss company is paying tax there, and you are a freelancer from India(resident in india) how to tax filing /rate etc has to be investigated. Also, can you apply for tax back from swiss( a portion of tax paid can be refunded eg: in Germany) but I dont know if this is true for Freelancers and also for people out side SWISS. Bip", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb2e53bae376cfbc345663b020909f61", "text": "After that I moved to the Middle East on March 23rd, 2015 As an NRI, one should not hold any Savings account. Please have this converted to NRO Account. Additionally it is advised that you open an NRE account. Both these can be done remotely. If I transfer money from here to a non NRE/NRO account then is it taxable? Assuming its income earned when you are NRI, it is not taxable. However if there is audit enquiry you would need to have sufficient proof to back that this income is earned during your period as NRI and hence not taxable. As indicate above, holding a savings account when you are NRI is a breach of FEMA regulation. I have been getting mail from myITreturns.com to file income tax returns. Since I am considered as NRI, do I have to fill any non return form online? If there is a source of income in India, interest on savings account etc, it is taxable and you would need to file appropriate returns. Even if you have zero income, it is safe to file a NIL return. For the year 2014 do I have to file income tax returns? For the financial year 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015, you are still a resident Indian for tax purposes. You should have filed the return by June 2015 if there was tax due, else by March 2016. If you have not done so, please do this ASAP and regularise it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a37ba433298a25962301a4c5df8a2d03", "text": "You haven't indicated where the funds are held. They should ideally be held in NRO account. If you haven't, have this done ASAP. Once the funds are in NRO account, you can repatriate this outside of India subject to a limit of 1 million USD. A CA certificate is required. Please contact your Indian Bank and they should be able to guide you. There are no tax implications of this in US as much as I know, someone else may post the US tax aspect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a72f166a535fb9410d51387be1ec78a1", "text": "What are the steps to bring the money to the US? It is worth 1.25 Crore and I have already paid the 20% tax in India. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme an Individual can repatriate funds upto USD 250,000 without any paperwork. However most banks would be cautious and request for Form 15CA and Form 15CB if you are moving funds from NRO Account. Form 15 CA you would need to declare why you are moving the said funds. The Form 15 CB is to be filled by Chartered Account certifying that relevant taxes have been already paid to Income Tax. Most Banks would offer these services. Compare the Fx Rate and Fees before you make a decision as to which Bank to proceed with.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5887ae10bf4ab41246a1f0c385e4673d	How to withdraw money from currency account without having to lose so much to currency conversion?	[ { "docid": "ef4596cc691792cd683cf0bc01b94162", "text": "If I understand your question, you're misunderstanding the buy/sell spread, and at least in this instance seem to be in an unfortunate situation where the spread is quite large. The Polish Zloty - GBP ideal exchange rate is around 5.612:1. Thus, when actually exchanging currency, you should expect to pay a bit more than 5.612 Zloty (Zloties?) to get one Pound sterling, and you should expect to get a bit less than 5.612 Zloty in exchange for one Pound sterling. That's because you're giving the bank its cut, both for operations and so that it has a reason to hold onto some Zloty (that it can't lend out). It sounds like Barclay's has a large spread - 5.211 Buy, 5.867 Sell. I would guess British banks don't need all that many Zloty, so you have a higher spread than you would for USD or EUR. Other currency exchange companies or banks, particularly those who are in the primary business of converting money, may have a smaller spread and be more willing to do it inexpensively for you. Also, it looks like the Polish banks are willing to do it at a better rate (certainly they're giving you more Zloty for one Pound sterling, so it seems likely the other way would be better as well, though since they're a Polish bank it's certainly easier for them to give you Zloty, so this may be less true). Barclay's is certainly giving you a better deal on Pounds for a Zloty than they are Zloty for a Pound (in terms of how far off their spread is from the ideal).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04e22683b2bf282a1ed2d51366b707aa", "text": "\"In answer to the \"\"how I can perform withdrawal with the lower rate (having GBP)?\"\" part of your question, as Joe stated you need to use another bank or currency exchange company to convert the GBP to PLN. Most of the UK banks charge similar amounts, and it's usually not possible to transfer the GBP to a foreign bank unless you have a GBP account with them. Some currency exchange firms are Transferwise, FairFX, CaxtonFX, a web search will show a fuller range. You could also use Paypal to do the transfer (if you have a paypal account) by transferring the GBP from Barclays to your paypal account and then from there to your PLN account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8a3be770ce129bad4209e137762f080", "text": "In your position I would use one of the existing Polish currency exchange platforms (you can find a list here: http://jakikantor.pl). A few of them have bank accounts in Britain so the exchange rate will be close to market price.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0848988ee6bf5d902b7090dcbc46de00", "text": "The location does matter in the case where you introduce currency risk; by leaving you US savings in USD, you're basically working on the assumption that the USD will not lose value against the EUR - if it does and you live in the EUR-zone, you've just misplaced some of your capital. Of course that also works the other way around if the USD appreciates against the EUR, you gained some money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca5d202b93c164af5f61d58a5cd0aa01", "text": "Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions. In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine). Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical. I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56f91d84f1a43125d0d28f4dd642bb6f", "text": "Well, one way I avoid all exchange fees is to trade currency with an individual. There's no trick, though. Just find a friend or family member on the other side of the border who wants your USD or your CAD, look up the exchange rate for the day, and hand over the money (or write each other checks). It's win-win because both sides are getting a good deal with no fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6f497d0d1f37a618b3d6ef7938703e3", "text": "Wire transfers are the best method. Costs can vary from $10 to $100 or more, depending on the banks and countries involved. There's rarely any saving using the same bank, although HSBC may have reduced charges if you have Premier accounts in both countries (for a one-off transaction, it may not be worth the effort to open an account). However, that cost is insignificant compared to your possible losses on the currency exchange. Assuming your money is currently in Hong Kong Dollars (HKD), it will need to be converted to US Dollars (USD). One place where it could be converted is at your Hong Kong bank. You'll get their retail rate. Make sure you are aware of the rate they will use, and any fees, in advance. Expect to pay around 2-3% from the mid-market rate (the rate you see quoted online, which doesn't fluctuate much for HKD-USD as the currencies are linked). Another place where the currency could be converted is at your US bank. You really don't get any control over that if it arrives as HKD and is then automatically converted into your USD. The rate and fees could be quite poor, especially if it is a minor US bank that has to deal with anther bank for foreign currency. For amounts of this size, it's worthwhile using a specialist currency conversion company instead. Currency Fair in Ireland is one. It's a peer-to-peer exchange that is generally the best deal (at least for the currency pairs I use). You wire the money to them, do the exchange on their site at a rate that is much closer to 0.5% from the midrate, then the money is transferred out by wire for a few dollars. Adds a few days to the process, but will possibly save you close to US$1000. Another established option is Currency Online in New Zealand. There are probably also specialist currency exchange companies in Hong Kong. The basic rule is, don't let the banks exchange currencies at rates that suit them, use a third party that offers a better rate and lower fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5a5158de606e7e460cd70ae9d56b730", "text": "\"UPDATE: Unfortunately Citibank have removed the \"\"standard\"\" account option and you have to choose the \"\"plus\"\" account, which requires a minimum monthly deposit of 1800 sterling and two direct debits. Absolutely there is. I would highly recommend Citibank's Plus Current Account. It's a completely free bank account available to all UK residents. http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/bankingproducts/currentaccounts/sterling/plus/index.htm There are no monthly fees and no minimum balance requirements to maintain. Almost nobody in the UK has heard of it and I don't know why because it's extremely useful for anyone who travels or deals in foreign currency regularly. In one online application you can open a Sterling Current Account and Deposit Accounts in 10 other foreign currencies (When I opened mine around 3 years ago you could only open up to 7 (!) accounts at any one time). Citibank provide a Visa card, which you can link to any of your multi currency accounts via a phone call to their hotline (unfortunately not online, which frequently annoys me - but I guess you can't have everything). For USD and EUR you can use it as a Visa debit for USD/EUR purchases, for all other currencies you can't make debit card transactions but you can make ATM withdrawals without incurring an FX conversion. Best of all for your case, a free USD cheque book is also available: http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/international/eurocurrent.htm You can fund the account in sterling and exchange to USD through online banking. The rates are not as good as you would get through an FX broker like xe.com but they're not terrible either. You can also fund the account by USD wire transfer, which is free to deposit at Citibank - but the bank you issue the payment from will likely charge a SWIFT fee so this might not be worth it unless the amount is large enough to justify the fee. If by any chance you have a Citibank account in the US, you can also make free USD transfers in/out of this account - subject to a daily limit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97d71f0aa71ee30780c8ca0195c66503", "text": "To transfer US$30,000 from the USA to Europe, ask your European banker for the SWIFT transfer instructions. Typically in the USA the sending bank needs a SWIFT code and an account number, the name and address of the recipient, and the amount to transfer. A change of currency can be made as part of the transfer. The typical fee to do this is under US$100 and the time, under 2 days. But you should ask (or have the sender ask) the bank in the USA about the fees. In addition to the fee the bank may try to make a profit on the change of currency. This might be 1-2%. If you were going to do this many times, one way to go about it is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, which does business in various countries. They have a foreign exchange facility whereby you can deposit various currencies into your account, and they stay in that currency. You can then trade the currencies at market rates when you wish. They are also a stock broker and you can also trade on the various exchanges in different countries. I would say, though, they they mostly want customers already experienced with trading. I do not know if they will allow someone other than you to pay money into your account. Trading companies based in the USA do not like to be in the position of collecting on cheques owed to you, that is more the business of banks. Large banks in the USA with physical locations charge monthly fees of $10/mo or more that might be waived if you leave money on deposit. Online banks have significantly lower fees. All US banks are required to follow US anti-terrorist and anti-crime regulations and will tend to expect a USA address and identity documents to open an account with normal customers. A good international bank in Europe can also do many of these same sorts of things for you. I've had an account with Fortis. They were ok, there were no monthly fees but there were fees for transactions. In some countries I understand the post even runs a bank. Paypal can be a possibility, but fees can be high ~3% for transfers, and even higher commissions for currency change. On the other hand, it is probably one of the easiest and fastest ways to move amounts of $1000 or less, provided both people have paypal accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a41efbee5c826099835787e354a813b0", "text": "I just tried doing that on my PP which is in the Netherlands, I have added a USD bank account (from my dutch bank) and they sent the verification amount in Euros, I called the bank and wonder why they didn't let me choose account currency they said it's not possible and if I cashout Dollars that I have in my PP (cause we usually do international business so we set it to dollars) it will be changed to Euros, So we decided to keep the dollars in account to pay our bills instead of getting ripped off by PayPal in xchange rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71e219616902d8413d4e308625b6c570", "text": "The only advantage of changing all your money now to the new currency is that you might get a better conversion rate now than later, so you get more of the new currency and you may pay a lower percentage fee for changing a larger sum of money. However, regarding the better conversion rate - you will not know this except with hindsight. The disadvantage of changing all at once is that if you have changed too much and need to change back to your own currency or a third currency, you will be charged fees and lose on the conversion rate twice. If you know how long you are going to be in the new country, say 12 months, maybe start by converting an amount you think you will be spending in a month. If you spend more then you can change a bit more the next month, or if you spend less change less the next month. If you find you are spending similar amounts for the next month or so, then you can budget on the amount you may be spending for the remainder of your stay and then convert this amount over. If you have a little left over at the end of your stay maybe reward yourself with something or buy a present for someone special back at home. If you need a little more, just convert this amount in the last month or so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db7a27bf0afb30d12a004f760578f6a8", "text": "\"is there anything I can do now to protect this currency advantage from future volatility? Generally not much. There are Fx hedges available, however these are for specialist like FI's and Large Corporates, traders. I've considered simply moving my funds to an Australian bank to \"\"lock-in\"\" the current rate, but I worry that this will put me at risk of a substantial loss (due to exchange rates, transfer fees, etc) when I move my funds back into the US in 6 months. If you know for sure you are going to spend 6 months in Australia. It would be wise to money certain amount of money that you need. So this way, there is no need to move back funds from Australia to US. Again whether this will be beneficial or not is speculative and to an extent can't be predicted.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a784e06e0738e08af5368a14b5afae86", "text": "There's another dimension here as currency conversion isn't necessarily the final answer. As stated by others, converting money between the three should theoretically end up with the exact same value, less transactional costs. However the kink is that the price of most products are not updated as the currencies change. In many cases the price difference is such that even accounting for shipping and exchange fees, purchasing a product from a distributor in a foreign country can be cheaper than just picking it up at the local store. You might even be able to take advantage of this when purchasing at a single store. If that store is set up to accept multiple currencies then it's a matter of looking at the conversion rates the moment you are buying and deciding which one is the cheapest route for you. Of course, this generally will not work for smaller purchases like a cup of coffee or a meal. Primarily because the fee for the exchange might eclipse any savings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14c5d648e9c36963ce54c11facfab02d", "text": "You didn't specify where in the world you account is - ScotiaBank operates in many countries. However, for large amounts where there is a currency conversion involved, you are almost guaranteed to be better off going to a specialist currency broker or payments firm, rather than using a direct method with your bank (such as a wire transfer). Based on my assumption that your account is in Canada, one provider who I have personally used with success in transferwise, but the best place to compare where is the best venue for you is https://www.fxcompared.com In the off chance that this is an account with Scotiabank in the United States, any domestic payment method such as a domestic wire transfer should do the job perfectly well. The fees don't matter for larger amounts as they are a single fee versus a percentage fee like you see with currency conversions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb7dcaebe389d9431bffa36af21264dc", "text": "Other than the exchange risk, one more thing to consider is interest rate risk and the returns you are generating from your money. If it is lying around in a current account with no interest then it is rational to keep it where you intend to stay(US or AUS). Now if your money is working for you, earning interest or has been invested in the market then it seems reasonable that you should put it where it earns the maximum for you. But that comes with a rider, the exchange risk you may have to bear if you are converting between the currencies. Do the returns earned by your money cancel out the FX rates moving up and down and still leave you with a positive return, compared with what you would earn if your money was where you stayed. Consider the below scenarios Do evaluate all your options before you transfer your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c98cf6419843e739fcdc244c80134fbc", "text": "A 2.5% fee is standard, and you're not likely to avoid a transaction fee when withdrawing cash from an ATM. You'd do better to get foreign currency before leaving the US, or to use a credit card abroad. Capital One has a credit card with no fee on foreign-currency purchases, for example. Another option is to open a bank account in the foreign currency, if you go to a particular country often enough to make it worthwhile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "057c8941ff4fd43be95685dd3b8b1374", "text": "I'm sorry I guess what i meant to say was, what's the downside here? Why isn't everyone doing this, what am i missing? Someone clarified that i'm completely exposed to FX risk if I bring it back. What if I am IN australia, how would I do this, short USD's?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "695a4021c1cf2de1f21f58272eb7eafc", "text": "Devaluation is a relative term, so if you want to protect yourself against devaluation of your currency against dollars - just buy dollars. Inflation is something you cannot protect yourself against because it is something that describes the purchasing power of the money. You will still need to purchase, and usually with money. A side effect of inflation is usually devaluation against other currencies. So one of the ways to deal with inflation is not to keep the money in your currency over time, and only convert from a more stable currency when you need to make purchases. Another way is to invest in something tangible that can easily be sold (for example, jewelery and precious metals, but it has other risks). Re whats legal and illegal in your country - we don't really know because you didn't tell what country that is to begin with, but the usual channels like travelers' checks or bank transfer should work. Carrying large amounts of cash are usually either illegal or strictly regulated.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
13ee73be00c339accdd326846273608e	How do I get into investing?	[ { "docid": "60a9f5107226f646e8d26736cf930801", "text": "\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4acb25e5b3c6f679fac607e6eabfdf5e", "text": "\"Before anything else, read up on the basics of economics. After that, there a few things you need to ask yourself before you even think about investing in anything: If you have an answer to those questions: Once you answered those questions I could make a simple first suggestion: Confident in handling it yourself and low maintenance with uncertain horizon: look up an online bank that offers ETFs such as IWDA (accumulation (dividend is not payed but reinvested) or income(dividend is payed out)) and maybe a few more specific ones then buy and hold for at least 5 years. Confident and high maintenance with long horizon: maybe stock picking but you'll probably never be able to beat the market unless you invest 10's of hours in research per week. However this will also cost a bit and given your initial amount not advisable to do. Be sure that you also have a VERY close look at the prospectus of an investment (especially if you go with a (retail) bank and they \"\"recommend\"\" you certain actively traded funds). They tend to charge you quite a bit (yearly management fees of 2-3% (which is A LOT if you are eying maybe 7%-8% yearly) aren't unheard of). ETF's such IWDA only have for example a yearly cost of 0.20%. Personally I have one portfolio (of many) only consisting of that ETF (so IWDA) and one global small cap. It's one of the best and most consistant ones to date. In the end, the amount you start with doesn't really matter so much as long as it's enough to buy at least a few shares of what you have in mind. If you can then increase your portfolio over time and keep the expenses in check, compounding interest should do the rest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da302fbfa3c5fd4fc872d67cf29b8eae", "text": "Don't try individual stocks. If you have a job, any job, even one from mowing lawns, you can open a Roth IRA. If you are under 18 you will need your parents/guardian to setting up the account. You can put the an amount equal to your earned income into the Roth IRA, up to the annual maximum of $5500. There are advantages to a Roth IRA: What happens if you are using your income to pay for your car, insurance, etc? You can get the money from your parents, grandparents. The only rule is that you can't invest more than you have earned. Act before Tax day (April 15th). You know what you made last year. If you open the account and make the contribution before April 15th it can count for last year, as long as you are clear with the broker/bank when you make the deposit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddcd57afd6bc86c1fa0c5230b92e65dc", "text": "The simplest way is to invest in a few ETFs, depending on your tolerance for risk; assuming you're very short-term risk tolerant you can invest almost all in a stock ETF like VOO or VTI. Stock market ETFs return close to 10% (unadjusted) over long periods of time, which will out-earn almost any other option and are very easy for a non-finance person to invest in (You don't trade actively - you leave the money there for years). If you want to hedge some of your risk, you can also invest in Bond funds, which tend to move up in stock market downturns - but if you're looking for the long term, you don't need to put much there. Otherwise, try to make sure you take advantage of tax breaks when you can - IRAs, 401Ks, etc.; most of those will have ETFs (whether Vanguard or similar) available to invest in. Look for funds that have low expense ratios and are fairly diversified (ie, don't just invest in one small sector of the economy); as long as the economy continues to grow, the ETFs will grow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54ce4f503afc151425f30f55a31e5e08", "text": "You are smart to read books to better inform yourself of the investment process. I recommend reading some of the passive investment classics before focusing on active investment books: If you still feel like you can generate after-tax / after-expenses alpha (returns in excess of the market returns), take a shot at some active investing. If you actively invest, I recommend the Core & Satellite approach: invest most of your money in a well diversified basket of stocks via index funds and actively manage a small portion of your account. Carefully track the expenses and returns of the active portion of your account and see if you are one of the lucky few that can generate excess returns. To truly understand a text like The Intelligent Investor, you need to understand finance and accounting. For example, the price to earnings ratio is the equity value of an enterprise (total shares outstanding times price per share) divided by the earnings of the business. At a high level, earnings are just revenue, less COGS, less operating expenses, less taxes and interest. Earnings depend on a company's revenue recognition, inventory accounting methods (FIFO, LIFO), purchase price allocations from acquisitions, etc. If you don't have a business degree / business background, I don't think books are going to provide you with the requisite knowledge (unless you have the discipline to read textbooks). I learned these concepts by completing the Chartered Financial Analyst program.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a15d9b3e75f2df1225a2d4ab3dd55f90", "text": "The best way to start out is to know that even the experts typically under-perform the market, so you have no chance. Your best bet is to invest in diversified funds, either through something like Betterment or something like Vanguard's ETFs that track the markets. Buying individual stocks isn't typically a winning strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04b9c34b353fc353f0aafb56a22df8c5", "text": "Start by paying down any high interest debt you may have, like credit cards. Reason being that they ultimately eat into any (positive) returns you may have from investing. Another good reason is to build up some discipline. You will need discipline to be a successful investor. Educate yourself about investing. The Motley Fool is probably still a good place to start. I would also suggest getting into the habit of reading the Wall Street Journal or at the very least the business section of the New York Times. You'll be overwhelmed with the terminology at first, but stick with it. It is certainly worth it, if you want to be an investor. The Investor's Business Daily is another good resource for information, though you will be lost in the deep end of the pool with that publication for sure. (That is not a reason to avoid getting familiar with it. Though at first, it may very well be overkill.) Save some money to open a brokerage account or even an IRA. (You'll learn that there are some restrictions on what you can do in an IRA account. Though they shouldn't necessarily be shunned as a result. Money placed in an IRA is tax deductible, up to certain limits.) ????? Profit! Note: In case you are not familiar with the joke, steps 4 & 5 are supposed to be humorous. Which provides a good time to bring up another point, if you are not having fun investing, then get out. Put your money in something like an S&P 500 index fund and enjoy your life. There are a lot more things to say on this subject, though that could take up a book. Come back with more questions as you learn about investing. Edit: I forgot to mention DRIPs and Investment Clubs. Both ideas are suggested by The Motley Fool.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "642c68dc6fda0293fac0df91b1ed1ae6", "text": "\"First, you need to figure out what your objectives for the money are. Mostly, this boils down to how soon you are going to need the money. If you are, as you say, very busy and you don't need the money until retirement, I'd suggest putting your money in a single target date fund, such as the BlackRock LifePath fund. You figure out when you are going to retire, and put your money in that fund. The fund will then pick a mix of stocks, bonds, and other investments, adjusting the risk for your time horizon. Maybe your objectives are different, and you want to become an trader. You value being able to say at a BBQ, \"\"oh, I bought AAPL at $20\"\", or \"\"I think small caps are over valued\"\". I'd suggest you take your $50,000, and structure it so you invest $5,000 a year over 10 years. Nothing teaches you about investing like making or losing a bit of money in the market. If you put it all in at once, you risk losing it all - well before you've learned many valuable lessons which only the market can teach you. I'd suggest you study the Efficient-market hypothesis before studying specific markets or strategies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3adfcbe31a6b9bb6731237d8769eecb4", "text": "For the mechanices/terms of stock investing, I recommend Learn to Earn by Peter Lynch. I also like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing by John Bogle. It explains why indexing is the best choice for most people. For stock picking, a good intro is The Little Book of Value Investing by Chris Brown. And then there is The Intelligent Investor by Ben Graham. IMO, this is the bible of investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52683fac8adacb6501cef0f04b28178d", "text": "The best way I know of is to join an investment club. They club will act like a mutual fund, investing in stocks researched and selected by the group. Taking part in research and presenting results to the group for peer review is an excellent way to learn. You'll learn what is a good reason to invest and what isn't. You'll probably pick both winners and losers. The goal of participation is education. Some people learn how to invest and continue happily doing so. Others learn how to invest in single stocks and learn it is not for them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1836169d4b281e472f6b660492a5e2ed", "text": "\"Question 1: How do I start? or \"\"the broker\"\" problem Get an online broker. You can do a wire transfer to fund the account from your bank. Question 2: What criticism do you have for my plan? Dividend investing is smart. The only problem is that everyone's currently doing it. There is an insatiable demand for yield, not just individual investors but investment firms and pension funds that need to generate income to fund retirements for their clients. As more investors purchase the shares of dividend paying securities, the share price goes up. As the share price goes up, the dividend yield goes down. Same for bonds. For example, if a stock pays $1 per year in dividends, and you purchase the shares at $20/each, then your yearly return (not including share price fluctuations) would be 1/20 = 5%. But if you end up having to pay $30 per share, then your yearly return would be 1/30 or 3.3% yield. The more money you invest, the bigger this difference becomes; with $100K invested you'd make about $1.6K more at 5%. (BTW, don't put all your money in any small group of stocks, you want to diversify). ETFs work the same way, where new investors buying the shares cause the custodian to purchase more shares of the underlying securities, thus driving up the price up and yield down. Instead of ETFs, I'd have a look at something called closed end funds, or CEFs which also hold an underlying basket of securities but often trade at a discount to their net asset value, unlike ETFs. CEFs usually have higher yields than their ETF counterparts. I can't fully describe the ins and outs here in this space, but you'll definately want to do some research on them to better understand what you're buying, and HOW to successfully buy (ie make sure you're buying at a historically steep discount to NAV [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1116411-the-closed-end-fund-trifecta-how-to-analyze-a-cef] and where to screen [https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener] Regardless of whether you decide to buy stocks, bonds, ETFs, CEFs, sell puts, or some mix, the best advice I can give is to a) diversify (personally, with a single RARE exception, I never let any one holding account for more than 2% of my total portfolio value), and b) space out your purchases over time. b) is important because we've been in a low interest rate environment since about 2009, and when the risk free rate of return is very low, investors purchase stocks and bonds which results in lower yields. As the risk free rate of return is expected to finally start slowly rising in 2017 and gradually over time, there should be gradual downward pressure (ie selling) on the prices of dividend stocks and especially bonds meaning you'll get better yields if you wait. Then again, we could hit a recession and the central banks actually lower rates which is why I say you want to space your purchases out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a8cc22dc42ac35add72e11e607880fa", "text": "Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better. I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1d1092c729bf1c0d6d13a0404f41686", "text": "Since then I had gotten a job at a supermarket stocking shelves, but recently got fired because I kept zoning out at work This is not a good sign for day trading, where you spend all day monitoring investments. If you start focusing on the interesting math problem and ignoring your portfolio, you can easily lose money. Not so big a problem for missed buy opportunities, but this could be fatal for missed sale opportunities. Realize that in day trading, if you miss the uptick, you can get caught in a stock that is now going down. And I agree with those who say that you aren't capitalized well enough to get started. You need significantly more capital so that you can buy a diversified portfolio (diversification is your limitation, not hedging). Let's say that you make money on two out of three stocks on average. What are the chances that you will lose money on three stocks in a row? One in twenty-seven. What if that happens on your first three stocks? What if your odds at starting are really one in three to make money? Then you'll lose money more than half the time on each of your first three stocks. The odds don't favor you. If you really think that finance would interest you, consider signing up for an internship at an investment management firm or hedge fund. Rather than being the person who monitors stocks for changes, you would be the person doing mathematical analysis on stock information. Focusing on the math problem over other things is then what you are supposed to be doing. If you are good at that, you should be able to turn that into a permanent job. If not, then go back to school somewhere. You may not like your schooling options, but they may be better than your work options at this time. Note that most internships will be easier to get if you imply that you are only taking a break from schooling. Avoid outright lying, but saying things like needing to find the right fit should work. You may even want to start applying to schools now. Then you can truthfully say that you are involved in the application process. Be open about your interest in the mathematics of finance. Serious math minds can be difficult to find at those firms. Given your finances, it is not practical to become a day trader. If you want proof, pick a stock that is less than $100. Found it? Write down its current price and the date and time. You just bought that stock. Now sell it for a profit. Ignore historical data. Just monitor the current price. Missed the uptick? Too bad. That's reality. Once you've sold it, pick another stock that you can afford. Don't forget to mark your price down for the trading commission. A quick search suggests that $7 a trade is a cheap price. Realize that you make two trades on each stock (buy and sell), so that's $14 that you need to make on every stock. Keep doing that until you've run out of money. Realize that that is what you are proposing to do. If you can make enough money doing that to replace a minimum wage job, then we're all wrong. Borrow a $100 from your mom and go to town. But as others have said, it is far more realistic to do this with a starting stake of $100,000 where you can invest in multiple stocks at once and spread your $7 trading fee over a hundred shares. Starting with $100, you are more likely to run out of money within ten stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81dc5a3ab1f76785932744c1f2a511a9", "text": "\"I get the sense that this is a \"\"the world is unfair; there's no way I can succeed\"\" question, so let's back up a few steps. Income is the starting point to all of this. That could be a job (or jobs), or running your own business. From there, you can do four things with your income: Obviously Spend and Give do not provide a monetary return - they give a return in other ways, such as quality of life, helping others, etc. Save gives you reserves for future expenses, but it does not provide growth. So that just leaves Invest. You seem to be focused on stock market investments, which you are right, take a very long time to grow, although you can get returns of up to 12% depending on how much volatility you're willing to absorb. But there are other ways to invest. You can invest in yourself by getting a degree or other training to improve your income. You can invest by starting a business, which can dramatically increase your income (in fact, this is the most common path to \"\"millionaire\"\" in the US, and probably in other free markets). You can invest by growing your own existing business. You can invest in someone else's business. You can invest in real estate, that can provide both value appreciation and rental income. So yes, \"\"investment\"\" is a key aspect of wealth building, but it is not limited to just stock market investment. You can also look at reducing expenses in order to have more money to invest. Also keep in mind that investment with higher returns come with higher risk (both in terms of volatility and risk of complete loss), and that borrowing money to invest is almost always unwise, since the interest paid directly reduces the return without reducing the risk.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af19554812ea5ad1f221e47cdb1600d1", "text": "For most people, investing in the stock market directly is one of the last things to do. That's not to say you shouldn't, but rather that there are other things to consider as well. Start with automatic monthly deposits to a liquid account such as savings or money market. The morale boost you get from seeing the balance grow is nearly impossible to beat. Following that, paying down any debts such as student loans or credit cards. Once you've done that, then you should look at company sponsored 401k plans or IRAs. Sharebuilder offers IRAs holding whichever stock or fund you pick. Again, automatic monthly deposits are the way to go here. Good luck, and happy investing :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e0a649f4daee3afb9ef5f74bc34ea44", "text": "\"For most, confidence comes with knowledge and experience. To understand more about how investing works, read articles about types of investments that you're interested in and browse the questions on this site. To gain experience, start with a \"\"paper money\"\" trading account. Most brokers will allow you to apply for a \"\"fake\"\" account so you can practice trading with simulated money. Once you've built up some confidence, you may wish to start investing a small amount of real money.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
84b63f658229e8028d417b63ef53dfe9	How are stock buybacks not considered insider trading?	[ { "docid": "45f923b590f9c623236b50c3523b36a7", "text": "In fact, buybacks WERE often considered a vehicle for insider trading, especially prior to 1982. For instance, Prior to the Reagan era, executives avoided buybacks due to fears that they would be prosecuted for market manipulation. But under SEC Rule 10b-18, adopted in 1982, companies receive a “safe harbor” from market manipulation liability on stock buybacks if they adhere to four limitations: not engaging in buybacks at the beginning or end of the trading day, using a single broker for the trades, purchasing shares at the prevailing market price, and limiting the volume of buybacks to 25 percent of the average daily trading volume over the previous four weeks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afad69ebd5de2d1abad06bfb878e19eb", "text": "In most countries there are specific guidelines on buy backs. It is never a case where by one fine morning company would buy its shares and sell it whenever it wants. In general company has to pass a board resolution, sometimes it also requires it to be approved by share holders. It has to notify the exchange weeks in advance. Quite a few countries require a price offer to all. I.E. it cannot execute a market order. All in all the company may have inside information, but it cannot time the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f573f0f78dede80290bd63fb89b32989", "text": "Companies already have to protect themselves against employees trading the company's shares with insider information. They typically do that in a number of ways: Taken together, this tends to mostly mitigate the risk of employees trading with insider information, though it's probably not perfect. In practice, the company itself's knowledge of insider information is the same as that of its senior management. So it makes sense for a company to be allowed to trade under the same conditions as its senior management. From https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/03/14/questions-surrounding-share-repurchases/ : If the company is repurchasing outside of a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan, it should limit its purchases to open window periods when officers and directors are able to buy and sell securities of the company. In addition, the company also can choose to disclose any material non-public information prior to any share repurchase if it is in possession of material non-public information at a time when it is seeking to make a share repurchase outside of a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan. As mentioned in the quote, a company can also set up a trading plan in advance (at a time when it doesn't have inside information) to be executed unconditionally in the future. Then even if the company comes into possession of inside information, it won't be using this knowledge to direct trades.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f73c466ce053f41b7197563386edddd5", "text": "\"Another way to look at this is that pure insider trading is an activity with the aim to use secret information to make personal profit or let others make personal profit at the expense of the company shareholders or investors. In buybacks, it is not company managers to get personal gain in this would-be \"\"insider trading\"\". The end-winners in this case are the shareholders. So there is nothing inherently bad in buying back stock. Moreover, it is a general practice to buy shares back (as opposed to paying dividends) when the company sees its shares being undervalued (of course, provided that it has the cash/borrowing ability to implement this), since it creates shareholders value, thereby maximising shareholder wealth, which is one of the primary tasks of the company managers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6dfe1333439370985d38d5a8a2ca24a3", "text": "\"The reason that stock buybacks are not considered insider trading is because the offers are open to all on equal terms to everyone outside the company. Even if the company knows \"\"inside\"\" information, it's not supposed to tell it (and company executives are not allowed to tender shares, unless they had previously set up a \"\"blind\"\" selling program on a\"\"schedule.\"\") If that's actually the case, no one investor is better informed than another, and hence there is no insider trading. The issue of inside trading is that \"\"insiders\"\" ARE better informed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20ff5cb24583d12967d4db5e7d7eea81", "text": "Buybacks do not increase the company's value. Cash is traded for outstanding shares. This is similar to a dividend, but instead of cash, investors receive a rising share-price. Whether an investor prefers a cash dividend or capital gains is less important than the outcome that their investment is gaining value for them.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "45aaf754b277715c534239e40d20050a", "text": "To dig a little deeper, a number of analysts within (and without) Reuters are polled for their views on individual stocks and markets on buy-hold-sell. The individual analysts will be a varied bunch of fundamentalists, technical, quant and a mixture of the three plus more arcane methodologies. There may be various levels of rumors that aren't strong enough to be considered insider trading, but all of these will give an analyst an impression of the stock/market. Generally I think there isn't much value there, except from the point of view if you are a contrarian trader, then this will form a part of the input to your trading methodology.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1741e85519d9f6f3edb360a2eb5bf284", "text": "\"Definitely not what I'm saying, I'm saying that instead of some of these companies spending 70% of their earnings on stock buybacks they should reinvest that money into their employees and pay out larger dividends to shareholders. I understand share repurchases are fine when not done in excess, but right now it's in excess to manipulate EPS and hit targets. You're missing the point, I'm not talking about the \"\"NPV of a random project\"\". Edit: this article I just found explains perfectly what I'm talking about: https://amp.businessinsider.com/whats-a-buyback-and-why-do-some-investors-hate-them-2016-6\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb44aa9c88eed2b53e5cbd2e480982bf", "text": "If you are in a position to have information that will impact the shares of a stock or index fund and you use that information for either personal gain or to mitigate the losses that you would have felt then it is insider trading. Even if in the end your quiet period passes with little or no movement of the stocks in question. It is the attempt to benefit from or the appearance of the attempt to benefit from inside information that creates the crime. This is the reason for the quiet periods to attempt to shield the majority of the companies employees from the appearance of impropriety, as well as any actual improprieties. With an index you are running a double edged sword because anything that is likely to cause APPLE to drop 10% is likely to give a bump to Motorola, Google, and its competitors. So you could end up in jail for Insider trading and lose your shirt on a poor decision to short a Tech ETF on knowledge that will cause Apple to take a hit. It is certainly going to be harder to find the trade but the SEC is good at looking around for activity that is inconsistent with normal trading patterns of individuals in a position to have knowledge with the type of market impact you are talking about.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15c0f3c6db362623acc63f89373449c7", "text": "What?? What a strange (and horribly wrong) thesis. Buybacks are economically the same as dividends. They are a way of distributing profits to investors. A company does this when it cannot find any good investment opportunities. It does not cause a lack of those opportunities. This guy has it completely backwards. After the buyback the previous stockholders now have cash to find opportunities that the firm wasn't itself either wasn't equipped to move on or didn't know about. That buyback distribution doesn't just get incinerated - it gets reinvested as per the previous owners desires. His example of how previously a firm had to invest since it had no way to return profits to investors is a perfect example of capital misallocation caused by taxation. This piece should be nominated for worst of the year. All intro econ students should read this and learn to dissect such claims.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ed31ce88106900d05930df8c45fe709", "text": "SEC forms are required when declaring insider activity. An insider is defined by the SEC to be a person or entity which (i) beneficially owns 10% or more of the outstanding shares of the company, (ii) is an officer or director of the company, or (iii), in the case of insider trading, does so based on knowledge which is not otherwise publically available at the time. At any rate, the person or entity trading the stock is required to file certain forms. Form 3 is filed when a person first transitions into the status of an insider (by becoming an officer, director, or beneficial owner of a certain percentage of stock). Form 4 is filed when an existing insider trades stock under the company's symbol. Form 5 is filed when certain insider trades of small value are reported later than usual. More information can be found at the SEC's website. Another possibility is that a large number of options or derivatives were exercised by an officer, director, or lending institution. In the cases of officers or directors, this would need to be declared with an SEC form 4. For an institution exercising warrants obtained as a result of a lending agreement, either form 3 or 4 would need to be filed. In addition to the above possibilities, username passing through pointed out a very likely scenario in his answer, as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "455ed166eb7e627286d56be7073dcf01", "text": "\"These people are pretty off. Insider trading cases, outside of a tender offer context, require some sort of a breach of duty. It's not simply \"\"non-public material information\"\". You have to trade securities in interstate, based on or while in possession of the material non-public information, and in doing so is a breach of duty owed to the company or to the information source. Now simply saying \"\"personal info\"\" about an executive does not tell me much about its materiality. So assuming it passes the materiality test, and assuming you yourself aren't a corporate insider, then the only thing left to discuss is whether or not it is misappropriation. To be misappropriation you need to be breaching some duty owed to your information source. Now this isn't just principal-agent duty, this can extend to friends and family if there is a pattern of keeping confidences. So unless you're this guys brother or doctor there really isn't a strong claim against you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fb1bdfa0afcbebd9e440cff0ee16612", "text": "I actually disagree that it is unethical or even wrong, and I think allowing insider trading to occur again would help increase confidence in markets for several reasons. It's still not a good look for the politicians though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc51a6bde4b85c0849c31a210d1ba7a3", "text": "\"In [United States vs. O'Hagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O%27Hagan)* the Supreme Court established the precedent of interpreting SEC rule 10(b) using the \"\"misappropriation theory\"\". The theory establishes that: > misappropriating confidential information for securities trading purposes, in breach of a duty owed to the source of that information, gives rise to a duty to disclose or abstain. You're correct that from a legal perspective the rules are anything but clear outside of company insiders. However, your own admission is consistent with what anyone in the securities industry knows is true - if you trade on material non-public information, you risk being charged. I think most would conclude that it's unethical irrespective of the letter of the law. It damages the integrity and functioning of markets. Furthermore, if the law was clarified, I think it's highly unlikely it would state \"\"trading on material non-public information is permissible for anyone who is not a company insider\"\". Instead, I would expect it to be consistent with \"\"Trading on material non-public information is illegal. If in doubt, abstain.\"\" And this is exactly what the government officials should be doing - abstaining.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc8a62eba2e7e399e1295a6c80f1ee90", "text": "\"Since doodle77 handled arbitrage, I'll take goodwill. Goodwill is an accounting term that acts much like a \"\"plug\"\" account: you add/subtract to it the amount that makes everything balance. In the case of goodwill, it generally only applies to mergers & acquisitions. The theory (and justification) is this: firms buy other firms at prices other than the market price (usually higher), and it is assumed that this is because the acquirer values its acquisition more than other people do. But whether you use historical prices or market prices when you add (subtract) assets and liabilities to to (from) your balance sheet, this will never add up, because you paid more (less) than the assets are worth in the market, so more (less) cash flowed out than assets flowed in. The difference goes into the goodwill account, so firms with a large goodwill account are ones that have made lots of acquisitions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d28219405d809d4659b582e77e331c6", "text": "Insiders (those who are aware of non-public material information, not necessarily employees) are the ones who actually cannot sell once they learned about whatever, by law. Martha Stewart went to jail for that. Any such deviation from the norm triggers abnormal response and avalanche of rumors, so by default investors assume something bad and try to minimize the loss. When dealing with a tiny company (market cap of less than 15M) with a tiny market volume (6.2M), the swings can be very significant. For such a small company, it is safe to assume that something happened that lead them to delay the conference call, and since they didn't tell what happen, investors assume the worst. It might end up as the CEO and CFO having bad stomach after celebrating 100% growth in revenue they were going to announce, but you'll have to wait and see....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0683565621aff565ab849e4edfad786a", "text": "\"You have to read some appeals court cases see scholar.google.com , as well as SEC enforcement actions on sec.gov to get an understanding of how the SEC operates. http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/insidertrading/cases.shtml There are court created guidelines for how insider trading would be proven There is no clear line, but it is the \"\"emergency asset injunctions\"\" (freezing your assets if you nailed a suspiciously lucrative trade) you really want to avoid, and this is often times enforced/reported by the brokers themselves since the SEC does not have the resources to monitor every account's trading activities. There are some thin lines, such as having your lawyer file a lawsuit, and as soon as it is filed it is technically public so you short the recipient's stock. Or having someone in a court room updating you on case developments as soon as possible so you can make trades (although this may just be actually public, depending on the court). But the rules create the opportunities Also consider that the United States is the most strict country in this regard, there are tons of capital markets and the ideals or views of \"\"illegal insider trading\"\" compared to \"\"having reached a level of society where you are privileged to obtain this information\"\" vary across the board contains charts of countries where an existing insider trading prohibition is actually enforced: http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=articles https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~charvey/Teaching/BA453_2005/BD_The_world.pdf Finally, consider some markets that don't include equities, as trading on an information advantage is only applicable to things the SEC regulates, and there are plenty of things that agency doesn't regulate. So trying to reverse engineer the SEC may not be the most optimal use of energy\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d3da25089418411eb6408c048816288", "text": "In the United States, when key people in a company buy or sell shares there are reporting requirements. The definition of key people includes people like the CEO, and large shareholders. There are also rules that can lock out their ability to buy and sell shares during periods where their insider knowledge would give them an advantage. These reporting rules are to level the playing field regarding news that will impact the stock price. These rules are different than the reporting rules that the IRS has to be able to tax capital gains. These are also separate than the registration rules for the shares so that you get all the benefits of owning the stock (dividends, voting at the annual meeting, voting on a merger or acquisition).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50affc8a60ecd2bea2f5508658e5f3b4", "text": "\"Actually there is no law that makes insider trading illegal, except for actual company insiders (people working at the company). Insider trading as you describe is just a court precedent set in the 80s (I think it was the 80s) and it's based on the concept of \"\"fraud\"\", whereby you are misappropriating information that you should not have. So no, insider trading isn't \"\"illegal\"\" in that sense, and the jury is out as to whether it's even bad or not for the markets. That doesn't mean I would recommend doing it or really anything even closely resembling it, since they're pretty aggressive about pursuing those cases.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "284f2fbee5b6cc709b75948be82d8d58", "text": "An oxymoron is something that contradicts itself. Inside trading is sharing information that isn't public. How the fuck do you think these hedge funds and investment banks can offer almost 50% returns during these times in our economy??? Oh yea it's called inside trading. Reason why it's an oxymoron is because trading information is considered ilegal yet that what everyone does on the market, rules are made to give off fear but past that it's all open roads and deep pockets. And if you really don't believe that stock market isn't rigged then there is no reason for me to explain myself on that because it would be like taking to a wall. And I thank you for being one of those people that thinks it's not rigged because you help my portfolio look good from your dumb investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "059852dbffd3476675acc40c0dfb6773", "text": "1) Yes, buyouts are always higher than the trading price. 2) ANYTHING can be negotiated. There is no rule saying buyouts have to be higher.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
57946eb61285c5a21bd1940018bce6eb	Co- Signed car loan and need to have the other signer relinquish claim to ownership	[ { "docid": "5b33653164a3081cba70f7d0a1fb18f8", "text": "The key here is the bank, they hold the title to the car and as such have the final say in things. The best thing you can do is to pay off the loan. Could you work like crazy and pay off the car in 6 months to a year? The next best thing would be to sell the car. You will probably have to cover the depreciation out of pocket. You will also need to have some cash to buy a different car, but buy it for cash like you should have done in the first place. The worst option and what most people opt for, which is why they are broke, is to seek to refinance the car. I am not sure why you would have to wait 6 months to a year to refinance, but unless you have truly horrific credit, a local bank or credit union will be happy for your business. Choose this option if you want to continue to be broke for the next five years or so. Once any of those happen it will be easy to re-title the car in your name only provided you are on good terms with the girlfriend. It is just a matter of going to the local title office and her signing over her interest in the car. My hope is that you understand the series of foolish decisions that you made in this vehicle purchase and avoid them in the future. Or, at the very least, you consciously make the decision to appear wealthy rather than actually being wealthy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ba1aa8230b37c2401e3c92abe036ee2", "text": "\"Your arrangements with the bank are irrelevant. Whoever is named on the title of the vehicle owns it. If she is the \"\"primary\"\", then I assume her name is on the title, therefore she owns the car. If you drive off with the car and it is titled in her name, she can report it stolen and have you arrested for grand theft auto unless you have a dated and signed permission in writing from her to use the car. Point #2: If a car loan was involved, then you didn't \"\"purchase\"\" the car, the bank did. If you want to gain ownership of the car, then you need to have her name removed from the title and have yours put in its place. Since the bank has possession of the title, this will require the cooperation of both your girlfriend and the bank.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6b1ab7d1a33c465b6fda5522c5f7455c", "text": "\"Just sign the form. The bank I worked for gave a .25% discount on auto deduct. Either you misheard that part or the person who sold you on the loan was new/ didn't explain it properly. It's an \"\"optional form\"\" but it does change your rate. Edit: you're not being pushed around. Someone got in trouble and is trying to cover their butt by getting it back quickly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a44e8cbf7e4a965cdc2a692b9e07023", "text": "\"As others have said, if the dealer accepted payment and signed over ownership of the vehicle, that's a completed transaction. While there may or may not be a \"\"cooling-off period\"\" in your local laws, those protect the purchaser, not (as far as I know) the seller. The auto dealer could have avoided this by selling for a fixed price. Instead, they chose to negotiate every sale. Having done so, it's entirely their responsibility to check that they are happy with their final agreement. Failing to do so is going to cost someone their commission on the sale, but that's not the buyer's responsibility. They certainly wouldn't let you off the hook if the final price was higher than you had previously agreed to. He who lives by the fine print shall die by the fine print. This is one of the reasons there is huge turnover in auto sales staff; few of them are really good at the job. If you want to be kind to the guy you could give him the chance to sell you something else. Or perhaps even offer him a $100 tip. But assuming the description is correct, and assuming local law doesn't say otherwise (if in any doubt, ask a lawyer!!!), I don't think you have any remaining obligation toward them On the other hand, depending on how they react to this statement, you might want to avoid their service department, just in case someone is unreasonably stupid and tries to make up the difference that was.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "858ecaea2a495ca143b96c3c61491e17", "text": "\"The risk is that you will owe the bank the principal amount of the mortgage. Based on your question it would be foolish for you to sign. Anyone who describes a mortgage as \"\"something\"\" obviously has no idea what they are doing and should never sign a mortgage which is a promise to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars. You would be doubly foolish to sign the mortgage because if you are guaranteeing the loan, you own nothing. So, for example, if your friend sold the house, pocketed the money, then left the country you would owe the full amount of the mortgage. Since you are not on the deed there is no way you can prevent this from happening. He does not need your approval to sell the house. So, essentially what your \"\"friend\"\" is doing is asking you to assume all the risk of the mortgage with none of the benefits, since he gets the house, not you. If a \"\"girlfriend\"\" is involved, that just increases the risk you will have a problem. Also, although it is not clear, it appears this is a second house for him. If so, that disqualifies him from any mortgage assistance or relief, so the risk is even higher. Basically, it would foolish in the extreme to co-sign the loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea644dd27f3b2afa63e02f3f282f44e9", "text": "This is an all too common problem and is not easy to resolve. Divorce agreements do not alter prior mortgage contracts. Most importantly, the bank is not required, and will not normally, remove the girlfriend from the mortgage even if she quitclaimed it to her Ex. If he has abandoned the property there is a good chance he will not make any more future payments. She should be prepared to make the payments if he doesn't or expect her credit to continue to deteriorate rapidly. She needs to contact her divorce attorney to review their mutual obligations. A court can issue orders to try to force the Ex to fulfill the divorce agreement. However, a court cannot impose a change to the mortgage obligations the borrowers made to the bank. Focus on this. It's far more important than adding her to a car loan or credit card. Sorry for the bad news. As for the car loan, it's best to leave her off the loan. You will get better terms without her as a joint owner. You can add her as an additional driver for insurance purposes. Adding her to your credit cards will help her credit but not a lot if the mortgage goes to default or foreclosure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ca37ccaeb56e7276aa66a6183d66820", "text": "\"I really don't feel co-signing this loan is in the best interests of either of us. Lets talk about the amount of money you need and perhaps I can assist you in another way. I would be honest and tell them it isn't a good deal for anybody, especially not me. I would then offer an alternative \"\"loan\"\" of some amount of money to help them get financing on their own. The key here is the \"\"loan\"\" I offer is really a gift and should it ever be returned I would be floored and overjoyed. I wouldn't give more than I can afford to not have. Part of why I'd be honest to spread the good word about responsible money handling. Co-signed loans (and many loans themselves) probably aren't good financial policy if not a life & death or emergency situation. If they get mad at me it won't matter too much because they are family and that won't change.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08dd672e379c06391abb498c1705a53e", "text": "\"It doesn't matter if you give the check to the dealer or your friend. But under NO circumstances should you co-sign your friend's car loan. Since the money you are giving is a loan, I highly, highly recommend you do the following: Requiring a signed promissory note shows you are serious about getting paid back, and gives you some legal protections if you are not paid back. If you go to a random small claims court on any given day, you will witness at least a few cases where one person says, \"\"it was a gift!\"\" and the other says, \"\"it was a loan!\"\". With a promissory note, it's a loan, period. Prepare not to get paid back, even with the note. It happens all the time. Think about what you will do if your friend misses a payment to you or never repays the loan. Will you forgive or get legal and try to collect? Again, do NOT co-sign the loan.If you do, and your friend does not make car payments, you will be 100% responsible and the lender will take legal action against you to collect.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a9a715a99e75fda4a54ce531c8a5a61", "text": "'If i co-sign that makes me 100% liable if for any reason you can't or won't pay. Also this shows up on a credit report just like it's my debt. This limits the amount i can borrow for any reason. I don't want to take on your debt, that's your business and i don't want to make it mine'.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb9ea76eef68b7af44e872e2f37d6569", "text": "Sorry, but I think you really do need an attorney here. This is the kind of minefield where knowing all the precedents and edge cases can make a huge difference in what you can or can't do, and a misplaced comma can make or break your case. Note that AT BEST you could sell your own interest in the house -- owning the note does not mean owning the property, it only means that they issued the note on the strength of your share of the property. And a half-interest in a single family house has little value outside the family, except to sell it to whoever owns the other half. Which is probably the best answer: Sell your half to your Aunt, if she can afford to buy it. She then gets sole control of the house, and you get the money you seem to need right now, and everyone in the family is much less stressed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a657ebfb18ae322601582d68caf28d63", "text": "If you've been paying on the car for three years, it's possible that your credit is in a place where you don't need a co-signer any more. See if your bank will re-fi with you as the sole debtor. If they won't do it, find another institution who will. The re-fi will take your grandpa off the loan, and whichever institution that does the re-fi will still have a lien on the title until you pay it off. Then, if you can do this soon enough, figure out if grandpa can sign you off the title.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8a3b86208adcc243e3092e47447862d", "text": "It seems like there are a few different things going on here because there are multiple parties involved with different interests. The car loan almost surely has the car itself as collateral, so, if you stop paying, the bank can claim the car to cover their costs. Since your car is now totaled, however, that collateral is essentially gone and your loan is probably effectively dead already. The bank isn't going let you keep the money against a totaled car. I suspect this is what the adjuster meant when he said you cannot keep the car because of the loan. The insurance company sounds like they're going to pay the claim, but once they pay on a totaled car, they own it. They have some plan for how they recover partial costs from the wreck. That may or may not allow you (or anyone else) to buy it from them. For example, they might have some bulk sale deal with a salvage company that doesn't allow them to sell back to you, they may have liability issues with selling a wrecked car, etc. Whatever is going on here should be separate from your loan and related to the business model of your insurance company. If you do have an option to buy the car back, it will almost surely be viewed as a new purchase by the insurances company and your lender, as if you bought a different car in similar condition.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5055608f8caf74890a406bf141ec219f", "text": "This is why we tell people not to co-sign unless they are able and willing to risk that money becoming a gift... or are able and willing to treat it as business rather than family. Unfortunately that advice is a bit late now to help you. When you cosigned, you promised the bank that you would make any payments he didn't. The bank doesn't care why he didn't, they just want their money on time. Getting him to repay you for covering this is strictly between the two of you, and unless you signed paperwork at the time establishing a contract other than the promise to cover his loan this becomes Extremely Messy. First step is to make the payments so the loan doesn't continue acquiring fees and hurting your credit rating, and keep it from falling behind again. Then you have to convince him to repay the money you have effectively given him. Depending on your relationship, and financial situations, you may decide to carry him for a while and trust that he'll pay you back when he can, or sic a lawyer on him. You need to make that decision, recognizing that it may be a matter of how much family drama you are willing to tolerate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "148f0f976110c67e4db7052db46b5637", "text": "\"Without all the details it's hard to tell what options you may have, but none of them are good. When you cosign you are saying that, you believe the primary signer will make good on the loan, but that if he doesn't you will. You are 100% responsible for this debt. As such, there are some actions you can take. First, really try to stress to your friend, that they need to get you outta this loan. Urge them to re-finance with out you if they can. Next look for \"\"better\"\" ways of defaulting on the loan and take them. Depending on what the loan is for you could deed-in-lue or short sale. You may just have to admit default. If you work with the bank, and try not to drag out the process, you will likely end up in a better place down the line. Also of importance is ownership. If you pay the loan, do you get ownership of the thing the loan was secured against? Usually not, but working with an attorney and the bank, maybe. For example, if it's a car, can the \"\"friend\"\" sign over the car to you, then you sell it, and reduce your debt. Basically as a cosigner, you have some rights, but you have all the responsibilities. You need to talk to an attorney and possibly the bank, and see what your options are. At this point, if you think the friend is not that much of a friend anymore, it's time to make sure that any conversation you have with them is recorded in email, or on paper.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be2d7fa01fe5a2e48f5e6a4a268f77ab", "text": "\"You are co-signer on his car loan. You have no ownership (unless the car is titled in both names). One option (not the best, see below) is to buy the car from him. Arrange your own financing (take over his loan or get a loan of your own to pay him for the car). The bank(s) will help you take care of getting the title into your name. And the bank holding the note will hold the title as well. Best advice is to get with him, sell the car. Take any money left after paying off the loan and use it to buy (cash purchase, not finance) a reliable, efficient, used car -- if you truly need a car at all. If you can get to work by walking, bicycling or public transit, you can save thousands per year, and perhaps use that money to start you down the road to \"\"financial independence\"\". Take a couple of hours and research this. In the US, we tend to view cars as necessary, but this is not always true. (Actually, it's true less than half the time.) Even if you cannot, or choose not to, live within bicycle distance of work, you can still reduce your commuting cost by not financing, and by driving a fuel efficient vehicle. Ask yourself, \"\"Would you give up your expensive vehicle if it meant retiring years earlier?\"\" Maybe as many as ten years earlier.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcb69c6454fee8382ec9cc86dbd5cbca", "text": "\"Not really. Unless you can show that there was an intent for you to have the money repaid (basically - a written loan agreement), no court will accept your claim. This is one of the situations you can see frequently on \"\"Judge Judy\"\" and such, and the decision is always the same: unless there's a written (or you convince the judge about a verbal) agreement that it is a loan - it is a gift.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e25c53b47f5600ad2fef4d5a83062748", "text": "I have been in this situation and I essentially went for the truthful answer. I first explained that co-signing for a loan wasn't just vouching for the person, which I certainly would do, but it was putting my name on the loan and making me the person they loan company would go after if a payment was ever missed. Then I explained that even within married couples, money can be a major source of strife and fights, it would be even worse for someone not quite as close like a family member or friend. Essentially I wouldn't want to risk my relationship with a good friend or family member over some financial matter.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c6731d4386e9a67e0f4bab0110854443	Cash flow implications of converting primary mortgaged residence to rental	[ { "docid": "4cebf899ff5e831a6d09b0757dbc3ccc", "text": "The rental income is indeed taxable income, but you reduce the taxable portion of it by deducting expenses (including mortgage interest, maintenance, insurance, HOA, real estate tax, and of course depreciation). Due to the depreciation, you may end up breaking even, or having very little taxable income. Note that when you sell the property, your basis is reduced by the depreciation you were allowed to deduct (even if you haven't deducted it for whatever reason), and also the personal residence exclusion might no longer be applicable - i.e.: you'll have to pay capital gains tax. You will not be able to deduct a loss though if you sell now, so it may be better to depreciate it as a rental, rather then sell at a loss that won't affect your taxes. Also, consider the fact that the basis for the depreciation is not the basis you currently have in the property (because you're under water). You have to remember that when calculating the taxes. This is not a tax advice, and you should seek a professional help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87da576f3c8012a74209d6db176a2c7a", "text": "\"You are assuming 100% occupancy and 100% rent collection. This is unrealistic. You could get lucky and find that long term tenant with great credit that always pays their bills... but in reality that person usually buys a home they do not rent long term. So you will need to be prepared for periods of no renters and periods of non payment. The expenses here I would expect could wipe out more than you can make in \"\"profit\"\" based on your numbers. Have you checked to find out what the insurance on a rental property is? I am guessing it will go up probably 200-500 a year possibly more depending on coverage. You will need a different type of insurance for rental property. Have you checked with your mortgage provider to make sure that you can convert to a rental property? Some mortgages (mine is one) restrict the use of the home from being a rental property. You may be required to refinance your home which could cost you more, in addition if you are under water it will be hard to find a new financier willing to write that mortgage with anything like reasonable terms. You are correct you would be taking on a new expense in rental. It is non deductible, and the IRS knows this well. As Littleadv's answer stated you can deduct some expenses from your rental property. I am not sure that you will have a net wash or loss when you add those expenses. If you do then you have a problem since you have a business losing money. This does not even address the headaches that come with being a landlord. By my quick calculations if you want to break even your rental property should be about 2175/Month. This accounts for 80% occupancy and 80% rental payment. If you get better than that you should make a bit of a profit... dont worry im sure the house will find a way to reclaim it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a873928ae3e926d6bf8cd38ab90ef9d7", "text": "You have some of the math right, but are missing a few things. Here's what I can offer - if I leave anything out, someone please expand or clarify. Rental income can be reduced by mortgage interest and maintenance costs (as you mentioned), but also by property tax payments, association fees, insurance costs, landlord expenses, and depreciation. Note that if you don't live in the property for 3 years, you'll have to pay capital gains tax if/when you sell the house. You can live in it again for 2 of the last 5 years to avoid this. Many people recommend only assuming you will get 10 months of rental income a year, to account for transitions between tenants, difficult in finding new tenants, and the occasional deadbeat tenant. This also adds a buffer for unexpected problems you need to fix in the house. If you can't at least break even on 10 months of income a year, consider the risk. I think there are also some cases where you need to repay depreciation amounts that you have deducted, but I don't know the details. Renting out a house can be fun and profitable, but it's very far from a sure thing. I'd always recommend preparation and caution, and of course talking to professionals about the finances, accounting, and lease-writing. Good luck!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "724c1a643a96bf8d1b035e16c22e6f01", "text": "It increases mobility for homeowners. I don't know what tax jurisdiction you are in but you'll tend to get a break on taxes if you are selling your primary residence. For example, if you were to relocate to another location and it was taxed normally, then it will trigger a tax bill on a home, even though you were going to repurpose those funds for a similar home.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f5817302bdf7050001df688b373b906", "text": "If the mortgage is against your primary residence, then the only part that's (probably) deductible is the mortgage interest. If you pay down your loan principal faster, then all other things being equal you'll get less of a tax deduction, because you'll accrue less interest in the months after you throw a big chunk at the principal (the principal is less, so the interest is less). But don't worry; that's all right! It's a tax deduction, so your actual tax savings will be only a fraction of the interest you paid, so at the end of the day you'll be saving yourself money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18a4acfd33c5b0a9aca4a2a2e35d466f", "text": "The issue here is that the transaction (your funds to her account) looks very similar to the rent payments which you plan to make in the future. Those rental payments (if deemed to be commercial) would normally be subject to tax. Consider the scenario where rather than an up front $5000, and $5000 over 2 years, you paid her $10000, and paid no rent. That might be an attempt to avoid paying tax. A commercial transaction can't be re-labeled as a gift just based on your election - the transaction needs to be considered as a whole. However, an interest free, unsecured loan connected with you paying rent at market rate would be (depending on local laws) simply foolish (to some extent). I don't think you are able to structure the transaction as a joint purchase (since the mortgage will prevent her from allocating a part of the property to you). Its also likely that you can live in her house and contribute an adequate amount to the household costs without creating a taxable income for her. For example in the UK, up to ~£4000 pa rental income generated from the property in which you reside does not need to be declared. You need to identify the scenarios where your particular arrangement could be imagined as resulting in a taxable or potentially taxable event - then make sure you are not avoiding those events just by choosing how you label the events.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3c6a45aea4d9f4080a1225c5a2cd167", "text": "First the good news: based on the time involved, and the amount of potential profits; you will not owe any tax on the sale of the house no matter which option you pick. Now the details. When determining if there are any capital gains the IRS cares about the difference between the sale price and the purchase price. The amount of the loan, the final balance of the loan, or the lack of loan don't factor into the calculation. To complicate matters the government does factor into the equation any improvements you have made to the house (like a new deck) and the cost of buying and selling the house (real estate agents). If a single person has less than 250K in capital gains and has used the house as their main residence for 2 of the the previous 5 years their tax is zero. For a couple the tax free gain is $500K. For your situation since the sale price is less than $250K, the capital gains will also be less than $250K. You do have one potential area of concern. If the house is worth significantly more than $150K, the government could claim that the difference between what you charged your parents and what you could have charged was a gift. Assuming that there are no other factors that you didn't include in the original question it would appear that you will not face any taxes. Regarding your two options, neither will impact the taxes. Though draining your savings or investments could make it difficult to meet an emergency during the time between the sending of the $95K to the mortgage company and the closing on the deal with your parents. If the money came from retirement account it could have an even greater impact on your taxes and retirement situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a62f37b34eba5991155bb33948b3dbf5", "text": "It might some but I'd wager it pushes the short-term rental pricing down (like hotels) while pushing the long-term rental and housing market prices up. If landlords can make way more in short-term rentals they are going to do that and limit the supply of long-term. The tourism sector may have increased revenue but by what extent I don't know. I'd wager that exploding rent and housing prices will negate any benefits for most residents and may end up costing them much more. This is why I think you should only be able to do it on your primary residence. Unless you want to be regulated like a hotel because if you have short-term rentals that you don't reside in, that is effectively what you are. Not being regulated the same as a hotel at that point only gives you an unfair loophole advantage to other short-term rentals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36c896602ab0b1ab640cf2312e3bbe9c", "text": "I'd recommend you use an online tax calculator to see the effect it will have. To your comment with @littleadv, there's FMV, agreed, but there's also a rate below that. One that's a bit lower than FMV, but it's a discount for a tenant who will handle certain things on their own. I had an arm's length tenant, who was below FMV, I literally never met him. But, our agreement through a realtor, was that for any repairs, I was not required to arrange or meet repairmen. FMV is not a fixed number, but a bit of a range. If this is your first rental, you need to be aware of the requirement to take depreciation. Simply put, you separate your cost into land and house. The house value gets depreciated by 1/27.5 (i.e. you divide the value by 27.5 and that's taken as depreciation each year. You may break even on cash flow, the rent paying the mortgage, property tax, etc, but the depreciation might still produce a loss. This isn't optional. It flows to your tax return, and is limited to $25K/yr. Further, if your adjusted gross income is over $100K, the allowed loss is phased out over the next $50K of income. i.e. each $1000 of AGI reduces the allowed loss by $500. The losses you can't take are carried forward, until you use them to offset profit each year, or sell the property. If you offer numbers, you'll get a more detailed answer, but this is the general overview. In general, if you are paying tax, you are doing well, running a profit even after depreciation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e24ad712189fd4f20d9f7cef9b53e1b5", "text": "When you sell your primary residence, you are required to capitalize any loss or gain at that point; you do not carry over your loss or gain (as you might in an investment property). As such, the timing of the purchase of the next house is not relevant in this discussion: you gained however much you gained already. This changed from the other (rollover) method in 1997 (see this bankrate article for more details.) However, as discussed in IRS Tax Topic 701, you can exclude up to $250,000 (single or filing separately) or $500,000 (married filing jointly) of gain if it is your primary residence and meets a few requirements (mostly, that you owned it for at least 2 years in the past 5 years, and similarly used it as your main home for at least 2 years of the past 5 years). So given you reported 25% gain, as long as your house is under a million dollars or so, you're fine (and if it's over a million dollars, you probably should be paying a CPA for this stuff). For California state tax, it looks like it is the same (see this Turbotax forum answer for a good explanation and links to this California Franchise Tax Board guide which confirms it: For sale or exchanges after May 6, 1997, federal law allows an exclusion of gain on the sale of a personal residence in the amount of $250,000 ($500,000 if married filing jointly). The taxpayer must have owned and occupied the residence as a principal residence for at least 2 of the 5 years before the sale. California conforms to this provision. However, California taxpayers who served in the Peace Corps during the 5 year period ending on the date of the sale may reduce the 2 year period by the period of service, not to exceed 18 months.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6d494d875ef2d49a7a91e6dcd0de5f4", "text": "\"Short Answer: You're going to end up paying taxes on it. Despite the home being your primary residence, you don't meet the ownership test, and it isn't noted that you have had a change in employment, health, or other unforeseen circumstances that are \"\"forcing\"\" you to sell. Otherwise, you could qualify for a reduced maximum exclusion that might allow you to walk away without owing taxes, or with a reduced tax bill. You can't even do a 1031 exchange to re-invest into a new primary residence. You should check with a tax professional to see what adjustments you can make to the cost basis of the property to minimize your reported net profits. During the 5-year period prior to the sale, you must have: These periods do not necessarily have to coincide (You don't to live in it as your main house for 2 consecutive years, just 2 years worth of time of the last 5).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99b91d41b1b1cef488c8e9e858a201c8", "text": "There are those who are knowledgable in real estate who offer rules of thumb: Don't pay more that 50X the rent for the house. Here, $972 x 50 is $48600. Assume half the rent goes to expenses. So from $972, you net $486, and after that mortgage, you have $111 in profit. Zillow usually assumes 20% down, here $20K. So you are seeing a 6.67% return on your 20K. (Plus appreciation and principal paydown.) For the record, I just bought a 3 family, under renovation now. Expecting total cost to be $160K, and total rent $2500. I missed ratio a by a bit, but $1250 to go toward a $120K mortgage works out fine. $550 profit/mo on the 25% down ($40K). (By the way, a turnover of tenants can cost (a) a month of no rent, (b) a cost to the real estate agent, if you use one, and the cost to paint/repair. This is generally considered 10%. So if the 50% of rent seemed high, here's 10 of it.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4a581e544c5083cef6b408447f85bf5", "text": "\"This is a great question, considering that all of your expenses including PITA, Maintenance, etc. are paid by a tenant, your cash flow is $0. Most people would stop and assume your investment is not performing and your only chance at making money is through appreciation. Your question eliminates appreciation so here are the returns you would get on your investment. The math will probably surprise many that you are actually earning a return on your money. Annual Return = [((Future Value)/(Initial Investment))^((Periods per Year)/(Number of Periods) -1]100 % 5.51% = [($200,000/$40,000)^(12/360)-1]100 % As Chris Rea commented: The subtlety that some would miss is that while \"\"income covers expenses exactly\"\", embedded in the \"\"expenses\"\" is actually a repayment of the loan principal (and technically, that's not an \"\"expense\"\") so not all of the income is \"\"lost\"\" covering the \"\"expenses\"\". That repayment of principal portion of the rental income constitutes the return on the original capital invested.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9ea72f98104d3270a942ed21b839709", "text": "You could consider turning your current place into a Rental Property. This is more easily done with a fixed rate loan, and you said you have an ARM. The way it would work: If you can charge enough rent to cover your current mortgage plus the interest-difference on your new mortgage, then the income from your rental property can effectively lower the interest rate on your new home. By keeping your current low rate, month-after-month, you'll pay the market rate on your new home, but you'll also receive rental income from your previous home to offset the increased cost. Granted, a lot of your value will be locked up in equity in your former home, and not be easily accessible (except through a HELOC or similar), but if you can afford it, it is a good possibility.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "504db960177f3094e6a274c3880f6531", "text": "The other thing that you may or may not be considering is the fact that when she moves or otherwise ceases to live in that condo, you could then rent the unit out to others at the inflation adjusted rent price for the area. You could continue to build equity in the property for a fraction of the cost, and it would continue to be a tax write-off once your mother is not living there. While you have more maintenance and repairs cost when renters live there (typically, anyway), if inflation continues to carry on at about 4-5%, then you would be potentially renting the unit out at between $2,500 and $2,850 by the 10th year from now. Obviously, there are other considerations to be made as well, but those are some additional factors that don't seem to have been addressed in any of the above comments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1af8d549570d0e6a704fe11a230ff174", "text": "There are a few ways to look at this question. Assumptions. Per the original post's assumptions, this answer: In other words, if the owner paid the mortgage on its original schedule, the deal could boil down to a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for $ 200,000 of equity after 30 years. Or the deal could boil down to a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for a $ 810.70 monthly payment starting in 30 years. While the owner is paying down the mortgage, the return on equity is the principal payment divided by the equity. The principal payment is the net rent minus non-financing costs and interest, so it is actually a profit. The initial return on equity is 6.321 % APR, or 6.507 % APY. This is calculated by dividing the $ 210.70 monthly principal payment by the initial $ 40,000 equity, and converting from monthly return to annual return. After 30 years, the return on equity is 4.864 % APR, or 4.974 % APY. This is calculated by dividing the $ 810.70 monthly cash flow (which is no longer reduced by mortgage payments) by the $ 200,000 equity after 30 years, and converting from monthly return to annual return. The cap rate is the same as the return on equity in the absence of debt. In this example, 4.864 % APR, or 4.974 % APY. The return on equity declines from 6.507 % APY initially to 4.974 % APY after 30 years. This is because the cap rate exceeds the note rate (4.974 % APY vs. 4.594 % APY), and the leverage decreases from 5x to 1x. The weighted average compound annual growth rate of the equity during the 30 years is 5.511 % APY. Per the original poster's answer, this is computed by taking the 30th root of the 5-fold increase in equity. Because the owner made no extra principal payments (besides those already discussed), the relevant amounts are the initial $ 40,000 owner payment and the final $ 200,000 owner equity. 5.511 % APY corresponds to a 5.377 % APR. The internal rate of return if the owner never sells can be computed by treating the deal as a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for an $ 810.70 monthly payment starting in 30 years. The internal rate of return (IRR) is not a very useful number, because it assumes that you can somehow reinvest the eventual dividends at the same rate. In this example, the IRR is 5.172 % APR, or 5.296 % APY. In this example, the IRR is calculated by (iteratively) finding an interest rate for which (initial investment) * (1 + IRR) ^ (number periods before dividends start) = (periodic dividend) / (IRR - growth rate of dividend). For example: $ 40,000 * (1.004309687)^360 = $ 810.70 / (0.004309687 - 0) = $ 188,111 I then converted the 0.431 % monthly IRR to an annual IRR. The deal can be thought of as a return on equity, plus a return on paying down the mortgage. When computing the return from paying down the mortgage, the initial equity is irrelevant. It does not matter whether you start with a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 160,000 property, a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 200,000 property, or a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 1,000,000 property. All that matters is the note rate on the mortgage, which is the applicable compound interest rate. The return on paying down the mortgage equals the note rate of the mortgage. For a 4.5% note rate, this works out to a 4.594% annual percentage yield (APY). You can confirm this by looking at your amortization schedule. Suppose you have a $ 160,000 mortgage with a fixed 4.5% APR note rate for 360 months. Your monthly payment is $ 810.70. In the first month, $ 600 goes toward interest, and $ 210.70 reduces the principal. In other words, the $ 210.70 principal payment eliminated the need for a $ 810.70 payment 30 years later. Notice that: . $ 210.70 * (1 + 0.045 / 12)^360 = $ 210.70 * (1.00375)^360 = $ 210.70 * 3.8477 = $ 810.71 which is within rounding error of $ 810.70. The interest rate is 3/8 % per month, which is an APR of 4.5%, and an APY of 4.594 %.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "849865233681cf162c72b2fb2ed4fc5a", "text": "\"Do you now own your new home, or are you renting? This is a classic case of a mortgage ready to blow up. These 7/1 interest only would have a low rate, say 3%. So on $200K, the payment is $500/mo, but no principal paydown. Even if the rate were still 3% (it won't be) the 23 yr amortization means a payment of $1004 after the 7 years end. At 4%, it's $1109. 5%, $1221. I would take this all into account as you decide what to do. If you now own a new house, you should consider the morally questionable walk-away. I believe you were sold an unethical product. mb wrote \"\"shoot up considerably.\"\" This is still an understatement. A product whose payment is certain to double in a fixed time is 'bad.' 'Bad' in the biblical sense. You have no obligation to keep any deal with the devil, which is exactly what you have. There are some banks offering FHA products that might help you. I just received an offer from the bank holding a mortgage on my rental property. It's 4.5% for a refinance up to 125% of current value. There's a cost of $1800, but I owe so little, and am paying it off faster than the time left, I'm not bothering. You may benefit from such a program, but I'd still question if you can make a go of a house that even 2% underwater. Do some math, and see if you started now with a 30 year loan how the numbers work out. (Forgive my soapbox stance on this. There are those who criticize the strategic defaulters. I think you fall into a group of innocent victims who were sold a product that was nothing less than a financial time bomb. I am very curious to know the original \"\"interest only\"\" rate, and the index/margin for the rate upon adjustment. If you include the original balance, I can tell you the exact payments based on the new rates pretty easily.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "257c70a9f954a96a7657e3761647efee", "text": "Think carefully about the added expenses. It may still make sense, but it probably won't be as cheap as you are thinking. In addition to the mortgage and property taxes, there is also insurance and building maintenance and repairs. Appliances, carpets, and roofs need to be replaced periodically. Depending on the area of the country there is lawn maintenance and now removal. You need to make sure you can cover the expenses if you are without a tenant for 6 months or longer. When tenants change, there is usually some cleaning and painting that needs to be done. You can deduct the mortgage interest and property taxes on your part of the building. You need to claim any rent as income, but can deduct the other part of the mortgage interest and taxes as an expense. You can also deduct building maintenance and repairs on the rental portion of the building. Some improvements need to be depreciated over time (5-27 years). You also need to depreciate the cost of the rental portion of the building. This basically means that you get a deduction each year, but lower the cost basis of the building so you owe more capital gains taxes when you sell. If you do this, I would get a professional to do your taxes at least the first year. Its not hard once you see it done, but there are a lot of details and complications that you want to get right.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3ddbf8b04c58d465dd06fd1f2a6f0f57	Does the IRS give some help or leniency to first-time taxpayers?	[ { "docid": "2417064daad1eb4d22a25329fc0f75b1", "text": "\"There's no such thing as \"\"leniency\"\" when enforcing the law. Not knowing the law, as you have probably heard, is not a valid legal defence. Tax law is a law like any other. That said, some penalties and fines can be abated if the error was done in good faith and due to a reasonable cause. First time penalties can be abated in many cases assuming you're compliant otherwise (for example - first time late filing penalty can be abated if you're compliant in the last 5 years. Not many people know about that.). Examples for a reasonable cause (from the IRS IRM 20.1.1): Reliance on the advice of a tax advisor generally relates to the reasonable cause exception in IRC 6664(c) for the accuracy-related penalty under IRC 6662. See IRM 20.1.5, Return Related Penalties, and If the taxpayer does not meet the criteria for penalty relief under IRC 6404(f), the taxpayer may qualify for other penalty relief. For instance, taxpayers who fail to meet all of the IRC 6404(f) criteria may still qualify for relief under reasonable cause if the IRS determines that the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence in relying on the IRS’s written advice. IRM 20.1.1.3.2.2.5 - Erroneous Advice or Reliance. Treas. Reg. 1.6664–4(c). There are more. IRM is the \"\"Internal Revenue Manual\"\" - the book of policies for the IRS agents. Of course, you should seek a professional advice when you're non-compliant and want to ask for abatement and become compliant again. Talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ce3c0de5cd8ce04c8a1764c39e3c46d", "text": "No, there is no special leniency given to first time tax payers. In general, this shouldn't be an issue. The IRS collects your taxes out of every one of your paychecks throughout the entire year in what is called a Withholding Tax. The amount that the IRS withholds is calculated on your W-4 Form that you file with your employer whenever you take a new job. The form helps you calculate the right number of allowances to claim (usually this is the number of personal exemptions, but depending upon if you work a second job, are married and your spouse works, or if you itemize, the number of allowances can be increased. WITHHOLDING TAX Withholding tax (also known as “payroll withholding”) is essentially income tax that is withheld from your wages and sent directly to the IRS by your employer. In other words, it’s like a credit against the income taxes that you must pay for the year. By subtracting this money from each paycheck that you receive, the IRS is basically withholding your anticipated tax payment as you earn it. In general, most people overestimate their tax liability. This is bad for them, because they have essentially given the IRS an interest free loan (and weren't able to use the money to earn interest themselves.) I haven't heard of any program targeted at first time tax payers to tell them to file a return, but considering that most tax payers overpay they should or they are giving the government a free grant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5500dfda716ea63d53a060a18e04c4d3", "text": "It might not be leniency for first time payers, but they do have programs, some federal some local, that help the poor and elderly complete their tax forms. There are also programs that allow the poor to file electronically for free. For most people the first time they file their taxes they are using the EZ form. Which is rather easy to do, even without the use of either web based or PC based software. The software tools all ask enough questions on the EZ forms to allow the user to know with confidence when their life choices have made it advantageous to use the more complex forms. The web versions of the software allow the taxpayer to start for free, thus reducing their initial investment for the software to zero. Because the first time filer is frequently a teenager the parents are generally responsible for proving that initial guidance. The biggest risk for a young taxpayer might be that the first year that itemizing deductions might be advantageous. They might never consider it, so they over pay. Or they discover in April that if they had only kept a receipt from a charity six months ago they could deduct the donation, so they are tempted to claim the donation without proof. Regarding leniency and assistance there is an interesting tax credit. The Earned Income Tax Credit. it gives a Tax credit to the working poor. They alert people that they need to Check Your Eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit They know that significant numbers of taxpayers fail to claim it. EITC can be a boost for workers who earned $50,270 or less in 2012. Yet the IRS estimates that one out of five eligible taxpayers fails to claim their EITC each year. The IRS wants everyone who is eligible for the credit to get the credit that they’ve earned. The rules for getting the credit are simple, all the information needed to claim it is already on the basic tax forms, but you have to know that you need a separate form to get the credit. But instead of making the credit automatic they say: If you use IRS e-file to prepare and file your tax return, the software will guide you and not let you forget this important step. E-file does the work and figures your EITC for you! and then : With IRS Free File, you can claim EITC by using brand name tax preparation software to prepare and e-file your tax return for free. It's available exclusively at IRS.gov/freefile. Free help preparing your return to claim your EITC is also available at one of thousands of Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites around the country. To find the volunteer site nearest to you, use the VITA locator tool on IRS.gov. But if you don't use free file you might never know about the form. Apparently it escapes 20% of the people who could claim it.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3d7833f48df0b9d829546e90aeb990ef", "text": "\"I have a related issue, since I have some income which is large enough to matter and hard to predict. Start with a best guess. Check what tax bracket you were in last year and withhold that percentage of the expected non-withheld income. Adjust upward a bit, if desired, to reflect the fact that you're getting paid more at the new job. Adjust again, either up or down, to reflect whether you were over-withheld or under-withheld last year (whether the IRS owed you a refund or you had to send a check with your return). Repeat that process next year after next tax season, when you see how well your guess worked out. (You could try pre-calculating the entire tax return based on your expected income and then divide any underpayment into per-paycheck additional withholding... but I don't think it's worth the effort.) I don't worry about trying to get this exactly correct. I don't stress about lost interest if I've over-withheld a bit, and as long as your withholding was reasonably close and you have the cash float available to send them a check for the rest when it comes due, the IRS generally doesn't grumble if your withholding was a bit low. (It would be really nice if the IRS paid us interest on over-withholding, to mirror the fact that they charge us interest if we're late in returning our forms. Oh well.) Despite all the stories, the IRS really is fairly reasonable; if you aren't deliberately trying to get away with something, the process is annoying but shouldn't be scary. The one time they mail-audited me, it was several thousand dollars in my favor; I'd forgotten to claim some investment losses, and their computers noticed the error. Though I still say the motto of the next revolution will be \"\"No taxation without proper instructions!\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90d0f60baf23f68e50157d52c6ab539b", "text": "\"I would advise against \"\"pencil and paper\"\" approach for the following reasons: You should e-file instead of paper filing. Although the IRS provides an option of \"\"Fillable Forms\"\", there's no additional benefit there. Software ensures correctness of the calculations. It is easy to make math errors, lookup the wrong table It is easy to forget to fill a line or to click a checkbox (one particular checkbox on Schedule B cost many people thousands of dollars). Software ask you questions in a \"\"interview\"\" manner, and makes it harder to miss. Software can provide soft copies that you can retrieve later or reuse for amendments and carry-overs to the next year, making the task next time easier and quicker. You may not always know about all the available deductions and credits. Instead of researching the tax changes every year, just flow with the interview process of the software, and they'll suggest what may be available for you (lifetime learners credit? Who knows). Software provides some kind of liability protection (for example, if there's something wrong because the software had a bug - you can have them fix it for you and pay your penalties, if any). It's free. So why not use it? As to professional help later in life - depending on your needs. I'm fully capable of filling my own tax returns, for example, but I prefer to have a professional do it since I'm not always aware about all the intricacies of taxation of my transactions and prefer to have a professional counsel (who also provides some liability coverage if she counsels me wrong...). Some things may become very complex and many people are not aware of that (I've shared the things I learned here on this forum, but there are many things I'm not aware of and the tax professional should know).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59cc89ee1a353a87d8b9b43ed83f0d75", "text": "I don't do this at all, but it's the internet, so hey, why not? According to the IRS, penalties and fines are only non-deductible when they are paid for actual violations of laws/regulations. So what crushedbyadwarf said is probably correct. The penalty/fine reduces their income, and they become entitled to a refund on the tax they paid on that income. It's still a questionable tax treatment of the penalty/fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9fd3b5f25bb9d6af63423130795181e", "text": "\"Do I have to explain the source of all income on my taxes? \"\"Yes, you do\"\", say the ghosts of Ermenegildo and Mary Cesarini. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/general/what-to-know-about-taxes-on-found-property/L9BfdKz7N The Cesarinis argued to the IRS that the money wasn’t income, and so it should not be taxed as such. The IRS wasn’t swayed by the couple’s argument. The case went to federal court, and the IRS won. “Found” property and money has been considered taxable income ever since. The IRS plainly states that taxpayers must report “all income from any source,\"\" even income earned in another country, unless it is explicitly exempt under the U.S. Tax Code. This covers a wide range of miscellaneous income, including gambling winnings. According to the Cesarini decision, money you find isn’t explicitly exempt. The tax impact won’t be significant if you find an item of property with a fair market value of only $500 and are in the 25% tax bracket. You’ll owe the IRS $125 ($500 x .25 = $125). However, if you are a finder and keeper of $10,000, your tax burden will be $2,500 ($10,000 x .25 = $2,500).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef0a5efb611d5ac6305005c10dcb6de1", "text": "The only way you will incur underpayment penalties is if you withhold less than 90% of the current year's tax liability or 100% of last years tax liability (whichever is smaller). So as long as your total tax liability last year (not what you paid at filing, but what you paid for the whole year) was more than $1,234, you should not have any penalty. What you pay (or get back) when you file will be your total tax liability less what was withheld. For example, you had $1,234 withheld from your pay for taxes. If after deduction and other factors, your tax liability is $1,345, you will owe $111 when you file. On the other hand, if your tax liability is only $1,000, you'll get a refund of $234 when you file, since you've had more withheld that what you owe. Since your income was only for part of the year, and tax tables assume that you make that much for the whole year, I would suspect that you over-withheld during your internship, which would offset the lack of withholding on the other $6,000 in income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f665108e75778d4633b077a1254a892a", "text": "He should look into the Voluntary Disclosures Program. He will have to keep up to date with his taxes thereafter, but the outcome will likely be better than if they discover he hasn't been filing before he discloses it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7e811dc686db34ea83ccc6787d733ca", "text": "\"The short answer is that the IRS knows this is an issue, so they are prepared to deal with the \"\"discrepancies.\"\" The filer does not need to something special to call it to their attention. Keep good records and consistently report according to your accounting processes. Exactly how the IRS resolves / flags this, I don't know. Maybe someone else can answer, but you can imagine that if they track you for multiple years they should have some idea of how many dollars are rolling over and whether you might have \"\"forgotten\"\" to report something from a few years ago that happened at a year-end break.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a179b6735e2b581d1797b56142f6ba59", "text": "Years ago I mailed my personal tax return one day after the due date, and my check was deposited as normal, and I never heard anything about it. As an employer, I once sent in my employee's withheld federal taxes one day after the due date, and I later received a letter stating my penalty for being late worked out to be around $600. The letter stated that since this was my first time being late they would waive the fee. In both cases, they could have charged me a late fee if they wanted to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85794d485be3d23157e21a9378a3e00f", "text": "To start with, I should mention that many tax preparation companies will give you any number of free consultations on tax issues — they will only charge you if you use their services to file a tax form, such as an amended return. I know that H&R Block has international tax specialists who are familiar with the issues facing F-1 students, so they might be the right people to talk about your specific situation. According to TurboTax support, you should prepare a completely new 1040NR, then submit that with a 1040X. GWU’s tax department says you can submit late 8843, so you should probably do that if you need to claim non-resident status for tax purposes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35c5605589b6b4dbdea21675a10af603", "text": "There might be a problem. Some reporting paperwork will have to be done for the IRS, obviously, but technically it will be business income zeroed out by business expense. Withholding requirements will shift to your friend, which is a mess. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA) about these. But the immigration may consider this arrangement as employment, which is in violation of the visa conditions. You need to talk to an immigration attorney.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4384bb6fc4e625759bd324cede2ceccf", "text": "I think you're making a mistake. If you still want to make this mistake (I'll explain later why I think its a mistake), the resources for you are: IRS.GOV - The IRS official web site, that has all the up-to-date forms and instructions for them, guiding publications and the relevant rules. You might get a bit overwhelmed through. Software programs - TurboTax (Home & Business for a sole propriator or single member LLC, Business for more complicated business), or H&R Block Business (only one version that should cover all) are for your guidance. They provide tips and interactive guidance in filling in all the raw data, and produce all the forms filled for you according to the raw data you entered. I personally prefer TurboTax, I think its interface is nicer and the workflow is more intuitive, but that's my personal preference. I wrote about it in my blog last year. Both also include plug-ins for the state taxes (If I remember correctly, for both the first state is included in the price, if you need more than 1 state - there's extra $30-$40 per state). Your state tax authority web site (Minnesota Department of Revenue in your case). Both Intuit and H&R Block have on-line forums where people answer each others questions while using the software to prepare the taxes, you might find useful information there. As always, Google is your friend. Now, why I think this is a mistake. Mistakes that you make - will be your responsibility. If you use the software - they'll cover the calculation mistakes. But if you write income in a wrong specification or take a wrong deduction that you shouldn't have taken - it will be on your head and you're the one to pay the fines and penalties for that. Missed deductions and credits - CPA's (should) know about all the latest deductions and credits that you or your business might be entitled to. They also (should) know which one got canceled and you shouldn't be continuing taking them if you had before. Expenses - there are plenty of rules of what can be written off as an expense and how. Some things should be written off this year, others over several years, for some depreciation formula should be used, etc etc. Tax programs might help you with that, but again - mistakes are your responsibility. Especially for the first time and for the newly formed business, I think you should use a (good!) CPA. The CPA should take responsibility over your filing. The CPA should provide guarantee that based on the documents you provided, he filled all the necessary forms correctly, and will absorb all the fees and penalties if there's an audit and mistakes were found not because you withheld information from your CPA, but because the CPA made a mistake. That costs money, and that's why the CPA's are more expensive than using a program or preparing yourself. But, the risk is much higher, especially for a new business. And after all - its a business expense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9dca32b8177f2bddd8208506c0d1b84", "text": "You proceed with a proper legal advice. You should not ignore IRS letters. You should have taken your chances in trying to reach a compromise with them, but that ship has likely sailed already. You might want to consider bankruptcy. Ask your parents for a couple of hundreds of dollars to pay for a legal consultation with a lawyer and a CPA and proceed from there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c8b81f8345d86c56215b7b3dd6e4a8c", "text": "Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4b404f2995ec98b70c55d6ce4413dc9", "text": "The difference is whether or not you have a contract that stipulates the payment plan, interest, and late payment penalties. If you have one then the IRS treats the transaction as a load/loan servicing. If not the IRS sees the money transfer as a gift.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cd9ddbb33a39b667b4b1e0f1df1a920", "text": "If you have complicated taxes (own a business, many houses, you are self employed, you are a contractor, etc etc) a person can make the most of your situation. If you are a w-2 single job, maybe with a family, the programs are going to be so close to spot on that the extra fees aren't worth it. I would never bother using HR Block or Liberty or those tax places that pop up. Use the software, or in my state sometimes municipalities put on tax help days at the library to assist in filling out the forms. If you have tough taxes, get a dedicated professional based on at least a few recommendations.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
754db13b6bd795ab28674a86520bd8c6	Can a CEO short his own company?	[ { "docid": "4b572cb9af51bb14e63ef4f6db26fad0", "text": "That would be the ultimate in insider trading. They made a stock transaction knowing in advance what was going to happen to the share price. They could easily expect to face jail time, plus the CEO would still face lawsuits from the board of directors, the stockholders and the employees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1929f84ebda43eda1fc9728f51932dbf", "text": "\"mhoran_psprep has answered the question well about \"\"shorting\"\" e.g. making a profit if the stock price goes down. However a CEO can take out insurance (called hedging) against the stock price going down in relation to stocks they already own in some cases. But is must be disclosed in public filings etc. This may be done for example if most of the CEO’s money is in the stock of the company and they can’t sell for tax reasons. Normally it would only be done for part of the CEO’s holding.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d38594a9dbf07bb6c67cc028f8152b96", "text": "\"If we take only the title of the question \"\"can the CEO short the stock\"\": It was probably different before Enron, but nowadays a CEO can only make planned trades, that is trades that are registered a very long time before, and that cannot be avoided once registered. So the CEO can say \"\"I sell 100,000 shares in exactly six months time\"\". Then in six months time, the CEO can and must sell the shares. Anything else will get him into trouble with the SEC quite automatically. I don't know if shorting a stock or buying options can be done that way at all. So it's possible only in the sense of \"\"it's possible, but you'll be in deep trouble\"\". Selling shares or exercising share options may indicate that the company's business is in trouble. If the sale makes that impression and everyone else starts selling because the CEO sold his shares, then the CEO may be in trouble with the board of directors. Such a sale would be totally legal (if announced long time ahead), but just a bad move if it makes the company look bad. Shorting sales is much worse in that respect. If the CEO wants to buy a new car, he may have to sell some shares (there are people paid almost only in share options), no matter where the share price is going. But shorting shares means that you most definitely think the share price is going to drop. You're betting your money on it. That would tend to get a CEO fired, even if it was legal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "285b348c6ae5fc496027cc017783fe17", "text": "Yes. It's called executive hedging, and it's a lot more common than most people know. As long as it's properly disclosed and the decision is based on publicly available information, there's technically nothing wrong with it. Krispy Kreme, Enron, MCI, and ImClone are the most notable companies that had executives do it on a large scale, but almost every company has or had executives execute a complex form of hedging known as a prepaid variable forward (PVF). In a PVF, the executive gives his shares to an investment bank in exchange for a percentage of cash up front. The bank then uses the executive shares to hedge in both directions for them. This provides a proxy that technically isn't the executive that needs to disclose. There's talk about it needing to be more public at the SEC right now. http://www.sec.gov/news/statement/020915-ps-claa.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52e8790f3d77d44502c61766e237945b", "text": "(yes, this should probably be a comment, not an answer ... but it's a bit long). I don't know what the laws are specifically about this, but my grandfather used to be on the board of a company that he helped to found ... and back in the 1980s, there was a period when the stock price suddenly quadrupled One of the officers in the company, knowing that the stock was over-valued, sold around a third of his shares ... and he got investigated for insider trading. I don't recall if he was ever charged with anything, but there were some false rumors spreading about the company at the time (one was that they had something that you could sprinkle on meat to reduce the cholesterol). I don't know where the rumors came from, but I've always assumed it was some sort of pump-and-dump stock manipulation, as this was decades before they were on the S&P 500 small cap. After that, the company had a policy where officers had to announce they were selling stock, and that it wouldn't execute for some time (1? 2 weeks? something like that). I don't know if that was the SEC's doing, or something that the company came up with on their own.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5c0cc30b838ab07deb53f21a966dbb9", "text": "It seems also on some international markets this is allowed. http://www.businessinsider.com/li-hejun-shorting-hanergy-2015-5", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b7edac9f8bfebc33c1fc885d2cac731e", "text": "\"Diversify into leveraged short/bear ETFs and then you can quit your job and yell at your boss \"\"F you I'm short your house!\"\" edit: this is a quote from Greg Lippmann and mentioned in the book \"\"The Big Short\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "def94f1988385a28e1e4760f02a63683", "text": "They can, at any time, unless it explicitly says otherwise in the bylaws, kick the CEO out for any reason. In many cases, I believe his salary is dictated by the board of directors (elected by the shareholders iirc), as it couldn't be feasibly done so by anyone else, since they work for him (her).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ebe9fa4ee74084e85bce4600ba68755", "text": "Oh the company I work for now. Victim of a poor CEO that has turned into poor leadership across the board. There are directors I'd love to meet, act very interested in why they do things the way they do. The interest wouldn't even be faked. I'm genuinely curious how someone could have so many stupid ideas. Then tell them they suck and they're fired.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d7022a861bd1e99017015e50ae64583", "text": "The typical structure of an HFT group is very small and flat. A few dozen people (maybe). The firm's capital is at risk, so the principals are usually very involved in what everyone is doing. I haven't seen any of these guys take up the title CEO.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04c5bc9de0dd286d1c2f05782c523269", "text": "There is some truth to this. But the reverse could be seen as Apple. Where they did this, and it blew up until they gave it back to Jobs. Similarly, Bezos seems to be doing a good job as CEO. Gates and Ellison also were pretty successful! I agree though that when companies start to get major investors/go public, there should be some planning/thought to see if the Founder/CEO is actually a CEO type", "title": "" }, { "docid": "224b2adcaf210e11107ae36c6a1e6b3e", "text": "\"Vitalik has mentioned this in a comment but I think it ought to be expanded upon: Companies that aren't already penny stocks really don't stand to gain anything from trying to prevent short interest. Short selling does not inherently lower the stock price - not any more so than any other kind of selling. When somebody shorts a stock, it's simply borrowed from another investor's margin; as long as it's not a naked short resulting in an FTD (Failure To Deliver) then it does not add any \"\"artificial\"\" selling pressure. In fact, shorting can actually drive the price up in the long term due to stops and margin calls. Not a guarantee, of course, but if a rally occurs then a high short interest can cause a cascade effect from the short \"\"squeeze\"\", resulting in an even bigger rally than what would have occurred with zero short interest. Many investors actually treat a high short interest as a bullish signal. Compare with margin buying - essentially the opposite of short selling - which has the opposite effect. If investors buy stocks on margin, then if the value of that stock decreases too rapidly they will be forced to sell, which can cause the exact same cascade effect as a short interest but in the opposite direction. Shorting is (in a sense) evening out the odds by inflating the buying pressure at lower stock prices when the borrowers decide to cover and take profits. Bottom line is that, aside from (illegal) insider trading, it doesn't do businesses any good to try to manipulate their stock price or any trading activity. Yes, a company can raise capital by selling additional common shares, but a split really has no effect on the amount of capital they'd be able to raise because it doesn't change the actual market cap, and a dilution is a dilution regardless of the current stock price. If a company's market cap is $1 billion then it doesn't matter if they issue 1 million shares at $50.00 each or 10 million shares at $5.00 each; either way it nets them $50 million from the sale and causes a 5% dilution, to which the market will react accordingly. They don't do it because there'd be no point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3372ab2c637d4541156521cfb61737d7", "text": "\"Learn something new every day... I found this interesting and thought I'd throw my 2c in. Good description (I hope) from Short Selling: What is Short Selling First, let's describe what short selling means when you purchase shares of stock. In purchasing stocks, you buy a piece of ownership in the company. You buy/sell stock to gain/sell ownership of a company. When an investor goes long on an investment, it means that he or she has bought a stock believing its price will rise in the future. Conversely, when an investor goes short, he or she is anticipating a decrease in share price. Short selling is the selling of a stock that the seller doesn't own. More specifically, a short sale is the sale of a security that isn't owned by the seller, but that is promised to be delivered. Still with us? Here's the skinny: when you short sell a stock, your broker will lend it to you. The stock will come from the brokerage's own inventory, from another one of the firm's customers, or from another brokerage firm. The shares are sold and the proceeds are credited to your account. Sooner or later, you must \"\"close\"\" the short by buying back the same number of shares (called covering) and returning them to your broker. If the price drops, you can buy back the stock at the lower price and make a profit on the difference. If the price of the stock rises, you have to buy it back at the higher price, and you lose money. So what happened? The Plan The Reality Lesson I never understood what \"\"Shorting a stock\"\" meant until today. Seems a bit risky for my blood, but I would assume this is an extreme example of what can go wrong. This guy literally chose the wrong time to short a stock that was, in all visible aspects, on the decline. How often does a Large Company or Individual buy stock on the decline... and send that stock soaring? How often does a stock go up 100% in 24 hours? 600%? Another example is recently when Oprah bought 10% of Weight Watchers and caused the stock to soar %105 in 24 hours. You would have rued the day you shorted that stock - on that particular day - if you believed enough to \"\"gamble\"\" on it going down in price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f516ba088049d07f7e5c9c81c63ae4f", "text": "Let’s turn this round. Now what if the only people willing to own part of company are doing it due to the expectation that they will make money in the short term form the company….", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04df881344f4003c31ca6fb7b9d516fe", "text": "This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57f79ebcf005439d8ffaac8693d819fa", "text": "Eh, a corporation owned in part by the person who directed the corporation to file for bankrupcy after the corporation lost a legal challenge, doesn't really mean much. Corporations exist to protect shareholders for exactly this reason. Sounds like this Bill Zanker person got hurt by the bankruptcy filing the most not Kiyosaki.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d60080d712fb6218076fb188ce7bf4ff", "text": "In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9c2c0c7b002d89409c6869f93afb653", "text": "\"It's called \"\"dilution\"\". Usually it is done to attract more investors, and yes - the existing share holders will get diluted and their share of ownership shrinks. As a shareholder you can affect the board decisions (depends on your stake of ownership), but usually you'll want to attract more investors to keep the company running, so not much you can do to avoid it. The initial investors/employees in a startup company are almost always diluted out. Look at what happened to Steve Jobs at Apple, as an example.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f130cbf649f1927e057d58350102db01", "text": "You can apply for a position with any company you like, whether or not you are a shareholder. However, owning shares in a company, even lots of shares in a company, does not entitle you to having them even look at your resume for any job, let alone the CEO position. You generally cannot buy your way into a job. The hiring team, if they are doing their job correctly, will only hire you if you are qualified for the job, not based on what your investments are. Stockholders get a vote at the shareholders' meeting and a portion of the profits (dividend), and that's about it. They usually don't even get a discount on products, let alone a job. Of course, if you own a significant percentage of the stock, you can influence the selections to the board of directors. With enough friends on the board, you could theoretically get yourself in the CEO position that way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5fe6bf4105d8bd78f591f6298bb715c", "text": "A company CAN hold on to money. This is called retained earnings. Not all money is due back to the owners (i.e. stockholders), but only the amount that the board of directors chooses to pay back in the form of dividends. There is a lot more detail around this, but this is the simple answer to your question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d9863faefe4a32970bf766757a3854b", "text": "\"tl;dr: Prosecutors probably thing they can't meet the \"\"reasonable doubt\"\" standard, and the deck is heavily stacked against lawsuits. The whole running the company into the ground part is legal. It's stupid, but no different than any bad boss that pits employees against each other. Just on a much grander scale. The real estate thing is extremely shady. However, when you're the boss of a company, It's not considered theft to do business with another company you own. The truth is Sears is drowning in debt. The CEO offered an easy out. They sell the property, and only pay reduced rent. It also means closing stores is easier, and Sears is on the decline. So, on its own, it's shady, but not the worst way of getting quick cash. The fact that the CEO is responsible for that decline is what pushes things into potential legal trouble. It's essentially a complicated form of theft. One where if Sears goes bankrupt too early (before 2020 or so), his real estate business can't handle it and burns. However, these sorts of executive theft are almost never prosecuted. The best chance would be a shareholder lawsuit, but it would have to be against the entire board for supporting him. Then you run into the issue that, while the board is \"\"elected\"\", the laws governing it allow for tricks that make the Russian election look sterling in comparison.\\* Basically, if a CEO is backed up by the board, and not doing something blatantly illegal, they can probably get away with it. Board elections tend to be rigged to the point that having a member that cares about the company, and all the minor shareholders is laughable. \\* In addition to how the candidates are chosen, votes are cast, etc..., etc... many companies have several types of shares. Some of which have no voting power, and some of which count for many times the vote of a normal share.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
174efe740b43123cc880d504cec4d2bd	What are the differences between gold/siver “coin” vs. “round”?	[ { "docid": "ea0ed3c94adb5be2e5b5b02e134808c4", "text": "\"Coins are legal tender. They're authorized by governments and have a face value. Rounds are simply coined pieces of metal minted by private manufacturers. They do not have any face value and are not legal tender. Rounds are used to own metal, they have no value other than the value of the metal in them. Any premium you pay over the price of the metal is the mint's profit. Coins are also used as bulions (i.e.: to own metal and create profits for the government), but many times coins have limited issue and become valuable because of the rarity, specific issues with a specific coin (mistakes, impurities, exclusive designs), etc. So they also may have some numismatic value (depends on the specific coin). Coins also have the assurance of quality of the authorizing government (and fakes are dealt with by the law as forgery of coins is illegal and is a crime), rounds however do not enjoy such protection, and any one can mint them (only copyright/trademark protections apply, where the enforcement is by the owner and not the government). Re the advantages - coins (if you pick the right ones...) appreciate much more than the metal. However, this is mostly in hindsight, and most of the \"\"bulion\"\" coins do not appreciate significantly beyond the price of the metal unless there's something else significant about them (first year of issue, high quality certification, etc). Rounds on the other hand are cheaper (1 oz round will be significantly cheaper than 1 oz coin), and monitor more closely the price of the metal. It is unlikely for rounds to significantly deviate from the spot price (although this does happen occasionally, for specific designs or if a mint goes out of business).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d818ea8c02e78aa158477c2286205cc4", "text": "littleadv gave a great answer, but neglected to mention one thing. Modern minted coins usually only contain a (high) percentage of a precious metal. For example pre-1965 quarters are 90% silver and 10% other, to maintain strength and durability. Rounds of silver bullion are usually .9999%, or fine, silver, which is considerably softer.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e76aee75fef6dbe440515cd180e1599e", "text": "Shops in most touristic places tend to accept major currencies (at least dollar and euro). I remember a trip in Istanbul before the euro existed, the kids selling postcards near the blue mosque were able to guess your country and announce in your language the price in your currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc423b22c60f3fca9cbc3a00e6c7eddd", "text": "The calculators on this site should help: http://www.measuringworth.com/ They allow you to choose a currency (only about half a dozen are available), enter an amount and the years to compare, and then provides feedback in a table. Obviously you will need to be careful which calculator you choose. If they don't cover the currencies you are dealing with, see this site: http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/current/howmuch.html They provide numerous links that, while they don't provide sleek calculators per se, they do offer guidance on how to handle conversions yourself. Regarding comparing the cost to something like gold, to try and help younger readers, I think it's a good idea but gold is not the ideal choice for comparison. I'd recommend something more tangible like household goods - what a Playstation would have cost in 1930s money etc. In short: the value of gold is esoteric even for most adults - concrete examples would be better.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d069054f5e253c0b4381e860c3697e74", "text": "This is a good point and where I think we should start the conversation. We have three coins: the penny, nickel, and dime, which have so little value that people question whether it's even worth the time to handle them. I think we should consider just getting rid of all three and start pricing everything in multiples of 1/4 dollars. There are some things, like gas, stocks, etc... that may still need to be sold in smaller increments, but do those things really make the costs and effort of minting and handling pennies, nickels, and dimes, worth it?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f952fd4655c7f72282cc9720de09acf2", "text": "\"I think you're talking about two types of machines, at least in the United States. The term change machine usually refers to a machine that accepts large denominations of currency and returns an equal amount of currency in smaller bills or coins. Typically these machines are used to provide coins in exchange for paper currency, in which case they are also often known as bill changers. Exactly what bills or coins these machines return depends on the machine. Read the instructions on the machine to get the details (they're usually right on the machine). For example my apartment building has a machine that converts small bills like ones and fives to quarters, since the laundry machines only took quarters. The other type of machine are coin-cashing machines, like the Coinstar machines you might see at a grocery store. Many banks used to have these machines as well although in my area they're few and far between now. These machines perform the opposite function of the traditional change machine and convert smaller denominations (mostly coins) into bill form. For example if you dump all your accumulated pennies into the machine, it will probably give you bills and larger coins like quarters, dimes, nickels in exchange, after subtracting a small fee. I've heard that now, some of these machines may give you a gift card of some kind instead of bills, although they'll still subtract a fee from your original amount, usually. Once again just read the instructions and they should tell you. When my bank had one of these machines, they didn't charge a fee as long as you were a customer at the bank. I'm sure that varies from place to place and bank to bank though. Wikipedia's article has this to say (see the article for references): In some sections of the U.S., regional banks have begun offering free coin-counting services in the amount of a gift card. Refunds are often given in cash rather than in the form of a gift card. In some cases, it is not even necessary for the customer to have an account at the bank; the free service is offered as a way to attract new business from individuals who are not current account holders. TD Bank's \"\"Penny Arcade\"\" coin counters were free and available to both customers and non-customers in many branches, but as of November 2010, the bank charges a 6% fee for non-customers to use the machine.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3643d7beeb720ccb8b716a16c50eaae2", "text": "\"The best I could come up with would be to simply ask for the amount of \"\"notes\"\" and \"\"coins\"\" you would like, and specify denominations thereof. The different currency labels exist for the reason that not all of them are valued the same, so USD 100 is not the same as EUR 100. To generalize would mean some form of uniformity in the values, that just isn't there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5819b1b16bb5a329fb87dea149f8148b", "text": "Goldprice.org has different currencies and historical data. I think silverprice.org also has historical data.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0af1d1dcebdbdfeaaa3645ad359906e4", "text": "\"Are you talking about a country besides the US? And you're talking about a commercial bank, right? In the US, banks don't buy gold from consumers. The last time they sort of did (in the early 1900s), they were trading gold coins for gold certificates, and then they later stopped allowing consumers to trade them back. This is known by a well-known financial term: \"\"Gotcha, suckers!\"\" If someone were naive enough to deposit a $50 Gold American Eagle today in a bank, the depositor will get a credit of $50 on their account, and later some clever person will ask the teller if they have any \"\"strange money\"\" lying around, and that lucky person will be able to withdraw a $1,700 coin for $50, if it lasted for even a second in the teller's drawer. But let's say you're going to a place that does indeed still buy gold coins. The discount depends on the type of coin, and the type of damage. An old (collectible) coin has a part of its value set by the gold value, and part by the collector's premium. Better specimens command better collector's premiums, so a damaged coin, as long as it isn't a chunk of the coin missing, won't be worth less than the melt value. (You may not get that much from a dealer, but it should be fairly close.) If part of the coin is missing, then the person buying it should weigh the coin and adjust the price proportionately. It's likely, though, that if you have the items in a safe, you may have a puddle or blob of gold, but it should still all be there unless someone takes it. Gold melts at about 1850 degrees Fahrenheit, but it would take half the surface temperature of the sun for it to boil away. If it's unidentifiable, it may need to be assayed again.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a93c451f46ad3d48c41ae4a06bbe3fc", "text": "\"Wikipedia has a nice list of currencies that use \"\"cents\"\" and currencies that use 1/100th division that is not called \"\"cent\"\". Cent means \"\"100\"\" in Latin (and French, and probably all the Roman family of languages), so if the currency is divided by 100 subunits - it will likely to be called \"\"cent\"\" or something similar in the local language. The list of currencies (on the same page) where it is not the case is significantly shorter, and includes countries with relatively ancient currency units that were invented before the introduction of the decimal system (even though now they are in fact decimal they still kept the old names, like the British \"\"pence\"\" or the Russian \"\"kopek\"\"). The point is that \"\"Dollar\"\" and \"\"cent\"\" are not directly related, many currencies that are not called \"\"Dollar\"\" are using cents as well (Euro, among others). It just means \"\"1/100th\"\", and it is safe to assume that most (if not all) of the modern currencies are divided into 1/100th.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e01c28da32def8063dacf216c88c7f30", "text": "I'll try. First forget everything OP said (your point? yay!). Gold has value because it is stamped with a value on the front (say, 10 denarius). This coin can then be used to pay taxes to Rome. The value of the coin is the stamp value, not the value of the underlying gold. The seignorage is the difference in price between the underlying metal and the marked value. Because the coin has a very valuable use (paying taxes) that the metal doesn't have, the government gets to keep the difference between value and coin price. Paper dollars are just like gold coins with a higher seignorage value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edf4fba292caeb83937280fef7ca1934", "text": "\"The general argument put forward by gold lovers isn't that you get the same gold per dollar (or dollars per ounce of gold), but that you get the same consumable product per ounce of gold. In other words the claim is that the inflation-adjusted price of gold is more-or-less constant. See zerohedge.com link for a chart of gold in 2010 GBP all the way from 1265. (\"\"In 2010 GBP\"\" means its an inflation adjusted chart.) As you can see there is plenty of fluctuation in there, but it just so happens that gold is worth about the same now as it was in 1265. See caseyresearch.com link for a series of anecdotes of the buying power of gold and silver going back some 3000 years. What this means to you: If you think the stock market is volatile and want to de-risk your holdings for the next 2 years, gold is just as risky If you want to invest some wealth such that it will be worth more (in real terms) when you take it out in 40 years time than today, the stock market has historically given better returns than gold If you want to put money aside, and it to not lose value, for a few hundred years, then gold might be a sensible place to store your wealth (as per comment from @Michael Kjörling) It might be possible to use gold as a partial hedge against the stock market, as the two supposedly have very low correlation\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "964aafc87d22321e824596a567052069", "text": "\"Coins are assets because its the actual money. Notes are liabilities because the Federal Reserve is obligated to pay money on these notes. Basically a Federal Reserve $1 note in your pocket is an \"\"I OWE YOU\"\" from the Federal Reserve, not money. While a $1 Susan B is not a \"\"I OWE YOU\"\" but the actual $1 worth of currency. Coins are minted by the US Government, the only authority to mint coins and create physical currency in the US. Federal Reserve doesn't mint coins, and doesn't create physical currency in the strict sense. It only prints its own obligations that are accepted as legal tender on par with coins. Printing more of the obligations doesn't create more money, as opposed to what many people are thinking and saying. It only creates more liability for the Federal Reserve. The Fed covers this liabilities with the US Treasury bonds, which it can use to cover its debts, and thus the Fed notes are covered by the US government indirectly. Coins are no longer made of precious metals since the 1960's. Last circulating coin made of silver was the 1969 50 cents coin (40% silver). All the rest of the denominations stopped being made of silver after 1964. Since then precious metals are only used for collectibles and bulions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f938294b1e5fa886e3ab9505c06a4245", "text": "\"The question I think is not: \"\"What is a certain material worth in a coin\"\" but \"\"What is a certain material worth in a coin and how much does it cost to get it out of there\"\". Just because something contains a certain element doesn't mean that you can get to it cheaply. Also as George Marian said: I don't think that it is legal to melt coins. So if the time comes you would first have to find a company willing to process the coins etc. Also you should not only compare what it is worth now and at a later time but also what that money would be worth if you put it into a high yielding savings account or something like that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94f18051e3c46aff0d139f67e81dc269", "text": "\"Gold has very useful physical properties for some engineering applications. Even tiny amounts of gold can substantially improve products, so it can be worthwhile to pay high prices per ounce for gold. For example: Gold can be \"\"beaten\"\" or electroplated to produce very thin shiny coatings. Entire roofs (of famous buildings) have been covered with \"\"gold leaf\"\", at a cost that was small compared to the supporting structure. A very thin layer of electroplated gold provides better protection against corrosion than a much thicker layer of electroplated nickel. Even if gold costs thousands of times more per ounce than nickel, it is cheaper to use gold as an anti-corrosion layer than nickel (for use in military-grade naval electronics). A thin layer of electroplated gold greatly increases the electrical current-carrying capacity of a thin copper wire.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d94ae385472b5e5bc693de99ac90847", "text": "I apply what you term 'money' to the word 'commodity'. And I agree with littleadv, you are just selling us your perspective on (such things as) precious metals. What I want you to think about is these truths: When used as currency gold just has two values: utility value and currency value. I hold it is better to separate the two. There is not enough gold in the earth to represent the value in aggregate economies of the world. Trying to go back to the gold standard would only induce an unimaginable hyperinflation in gold. Recent years shows that gold does not retain value. See the linked chart.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa5d7fc90781b75afd3e03ba8cc686cb", "text": "\"There are a lot of funds that exist only to feed people's belief that existing funds are not diversified or specialized enough. That's why you have so many options. Just choose the ones with the lowest fees. I'd suggest the following: I wouldn't mess around with funds that try and specialize in \"\"value\"\" or those target date funds. If you really don't want to think and don't mind paying slightly higher fees, just pick the target date fund that corresponds to when you will retire and put all your money there. On the traditional/Roth question, if your tax bracket will be higher when you retire than it is now (unlikely), choose Roth. Otherwise choose traditional.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
675e8bc9203590da9ebdb01b62398cb7	What happens if I just don't pay my student loans?	[ { "docid": "023d05470168adccc3d63bbb78ff7203", "text": "Same thing as for any debt: bank sues you, you lose, you are in an even deeper hole because you now owe them for the cost of the court case, your credit rating goes into the toilet, you may even have trouble retaining/finding a job. Being stupid is always more expensive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8125e139939bdcfbcaeb83f843bb2452", "text": "employed under the table and doesn't have a bank account If I could make that size 10,000,000 font I would. Your friend likely also isn't paying taxes. The student loan penalties will be nothing compared to what the IRS does to you. Avoid taking financial advice from that person.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "952ca1d90bac05577db80d5258d82c06", "text": "\"Never forget that student lenders and their collection agencies are dangerous and clever predators, and you, the student borrower, are their legal prey. They look at you and think, \"\"food.\"\" My friend said she never pays her student loans and nothing has happened. She's wrong. Something has happened. She just doesn't know about it yet. Each unpaid bill, with penalties, has been added to the balance of her loan. Now she owes that money also. And she owes interest on it. That balance is probably building up very fast indeed. She's playing right into the hands of her student lender. They are smiling about this. When the balance gets large enough to make it worthwhile, her student lender will retain an aggressive collection agency to recover the entire balance. The agency will come after her in court, and they are likely to win. If your friend lives in the US, she'll discover that she can't declare bankruptcy to escape this. She has the bankruptcy \"\"reform\"\" act of 2006, passed during the Bush 43 regime, to thank for this. A court judgement against her will make it harder for her to find a job and even a spouse. I'm not saying this is right or just. I believe it is wrong and unjust to make university graduates into debt slaves. But it is true. As for being paid under the table, I hope your friend intends on dying rather than retiring when she no longer can work due to age. If she's paid under the table she will not be eligible for social security payments. You need sixteen calendar quarters of social security credit to be eligible for payments. I know somebody like this. It's a hell of a way to live, especially on weekends when the local church feeding programs don't operate. Paying people under the table ought to be a felony for the business owner.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3e86d6a25a06bf114fedd27ca20791d", "text": "Collection agencies will eventually find you if you work for an employer that uses the credit bureaus for pre-employment screening, or you sign up for utilities or services that check your credit, or you enter into public record any other way (getting arrested, buying land, etc.). Such inquiries will put you on the grid where the collection agencies can find you and/or sue you. Two years out is about the point where they're looking for blood. The next time your friend applies for an apartment, utilities or cell phone service, she's going to get some calls.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa333059fd11e1523cf382938d912982", "text": "\"Let me give you some advice from someone who has experience at both ends - had student loan issues myself and parents ran financial aid department at local university. Quick story of my student loan. I graduated in debt and could not pay at first due to having kids way too early. I deferred. Schools will have rules for deference. There are also federal guidelines - lets not get specific on this though since these change every year it seems. So basically there is an initial deferment period in which any student can request for the repayments to be deferred and it is granted. Then there is an extended deferment. Here someone has to OK it. This is really rather arbitrary and up to the school/lender. My school decided to not extend mine after I filled out a mound of paperwork and showed that even without paying I had basically $200 a month for the family to live off past housing/fixed expenses. Eventually they had to cave, because I had no money so they gave me an extended deferment. After the 5 years I started paying. Since my school had a very complex way to pay, I decided to give them 6 months at a time. You would think they would love that right? (On the check it was clearly stated what months I was paying for to show that I was not prepaying the loan off) Well I was in collections 4 months later. Their billing messed up, set me up for prepayment. They then played dumb and acted like I didn't but I had a picture of the check and their bank's stamp on the back... They couldn't get my loan out of collections - even though they messed up. This is probably some lower level employee trying to cover their mistake. So this office tells creditors to leave me alone but I also CANNOT pay my loan because the credit collection agency has slapped a 5k fee on the 7k loan. So my loan spent 5 years (kid you not) like this. It was interest free since the employee stopped the loan processing. Point being is that if you don't pay the lender will either put your loan into deferment automatically or go after you. MOST (not all) schools will opt for deferment, which I believe is 2 years at most places. Then after that you have the optional deferment. So if you keep not paying they might throw you into that bucket. However if you stop paying and you never communicate with them the chances of you getting the optional deferment are almost none - unless school doesn't know where you live. Basically if you don't respond to their mail/emails you get swept into their credit collection process. So just filling out the deferment stuff when you get it - even if they deny it - could buy you up to 10 years - kid you not. Now once you go into the collection process... anything is game. As long as you don't need a home/car loan you can play this game. What the collection agency does depends on size of loan and the rules. If you are at a \"\"major\"\" university the rules are usually more lax, but if you are at the smaller schools, especially the advertised trade/online schools boom - better watch out. Wages will be garnished very soon. Expect to go to court, might have to hire an attorney because some corrupt lenders start smacking on fees - think of the 5k mine smacked on me. So the moral of the story is you will pay it off. If you act nice, fill out paperwork, talk to school, and so on you can probably push this off quite a few years. But you are still paying and you will pay interest on everything. So factor in that to the equation. I had a 2.3% loan but they are much higher now. Defaulting isn't always a bad thing. If you don't have the money then you don't have it. And using credit cards to help is not the thing to do. But you need to try to work with the school so you don't incur penalties/fees and so that your job doesn't have creditors calling them. My story ended year 4 that my loan was in collection. A higher up was reviewing my case and called me. Told her the story and emailed her a picture of their cashed check. She was completely embarrassed when she was trying to work out a plan for me and I am like - how about I come down tomorrow with the 7k. But even though lender admitted fault this took 20+ calls to agencies to clear up my credit so I could buy a house. So your goal should be:\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "fb641b440778b8abb937f3301fba9bca", "text": "\"To put a different spin on it, suppose you loaned someone $100K, expecting that they would pay it back, and then a little later they decided not too. They are perfectly capable of paying back the money, but just decided they didn't want to, and it seems the laws of your state said you couldn't make them. How would you feel about that? Since this is supposed to be an answer to the question, the answer is: \"\"only if you can't afford to repay it\"\". That's what foreclosure is supposed to be about, not you deciding you would rather not pay your debts. Let's not forget who pays that bill for you - every one of your bank's other customers. EDIT:For the people decrying the moral aspect and saying \"\"it's perfectly alright because the law says that's the punishment and I'm willing to pay it\"\", the law also says \"\"if you kill someone, you go to prison for life\"\". Does that mean that someone who decides they are going to kill someone has a perfect right to do it as long as they are prepared to take the consequences?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc91f4770f229fa8ddf1a3bb970b2725", "text": "\"I expect that the loan documents show both you and your ex-partner as \"\"jointly and severally liable\"\" for the debt, and thus you're both responsible for it. It doesn't really matter what other paperwork you have that says otherwise or what other promises might have been made. Certainly, the other agreements give you legal ground to go after your ex-partner for the money, but they give you no leverage with the bank. If you end up paying this debt off to save your credit, you need to make sure that the account is closed. Make sure you have paperwork showing it as closed, and showing that it was paid in full, and then keep that paperwork forever. Re #1: I think it will eventually show up on your credit report. You could ask the bank for proof that you owe the money, if you like, but that will probably just delay the inevitable. Re #2: His bankruptcy filing really has no bearing on you and your obligation to repay the loan. If he didn't list this debt, then he is still liable for it as well (and you can still go after him under your other agreements). But either way, you're still on the debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edd337c752d17dd13f30fed364e2a553", "text": "@littleadv has said most of what I'd say if they had not gotten here first. I'd add this much, it's important to understand what debt collectors can and cannot do, because a lot of them will use intimidation and any other technique you can think of to get away with as much as you will let them. I'd start with this PDF file from the FTC and then start googling for info on your state's regulations. Also it would be a very very good idea to review the documents you signed (or get a copy) when you took out the loan to see what sort of additional penalties etc you may have already agreed to in the event you default. The fee's the collector is adding in could be of their own creation (making them highly negotiable), or it might be something you already agreed to in advance(leaving you little recourse but to pay them). Do keep in mind that in many cases debt collectors are ausually llowed at the very least to charge you simple interest of around 10%. On a debt of your size, paid off over several years, that might amount to more than the $4K they are adding. OTOH you can pretty much expect them to try both, tacking on 'fees' and then trying to add interest if the fees are not paid. Another source of assistance may be the Department of Education Ombudsman: If you need help with a defaulted student loan, contact the Department of Education's Ombudsman at 877-557-2575 or visit its website at www.fsahelp.ed.gov. But first you must take steps to resolve your loan problem on your own (there is a checklist of required steps on the website), or the Ombudsman will not assist you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "356f7bf4dbe725de6404c491afb3dd10", "text": "To whom is all this debt owed? I would imagine the US gov't, meaning we're really saying that the Federal government and US taxpayer are slowly easing into the role of subsidising post-secondary education, just as state governments fund primary and secondary (though without legislative or judicial action to make the added debt support explicit). I thought most professors were supposed to be socialist anyway...you'd think they'd take on the needier students for free.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "935727f455dbdcdac5aa776580a95ca5", "text": "The bank will sell your debt to a collection agency, that will then follow you everywhere you go and demand payment. They will put a negative notice on your credit report preventing you from getting any new credit, and might sue you in court and take over some or all of your assets through court judgement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bbea649c7e431c0f3ff01003b0df303", "text": "You have not specified what country you are in. That radically changes everything. In case you are in Canada, there's a great blog that covers bankruptcy and student loans, at http://student-loan-bankruptcy.ca/. Fundamentally, in order to discharge government-backed student loans, you must have ceased to be a student for at least seven years prior to filing. Even then, though, the government can object, in which case you will still have to repay some or all of the loan. More generally, given that the collection agency appears to be operating in bad faith, you'll want to ensure that they send you written documentation of any offer they are extending you. If they refuse to do this, you should assume that they aren't actually offering you anything at all and you will have to pay back the full amount plus interest and penalties. Note that, in many countries, if you settle the debt (that is, pay anything less than the full amount plus interest and penalties), this will be a black mark on your credit report. In this case, if you repaid the full $16,000 and they forgave the extra $4,000, they would most likely still add a note to your credit report indicating that you did not pay the full amount that you owed, and this will negatively impact your credit rating even beyond your late payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3d0d88450f4b4c6e9b9ff492aefca89", "text": "So what if someone gets approved for a larger credit card balance and gambles it away? There's nothing tangible left except for maybe some norepinephrine left in your system... Honestly if the student loan system dried up for anything in like Liberal Arts, universities would scramble to fill positions in their schools and maybe tuitions would come down to an affordable level. Right now it's a joke. People are willing to pay for school and living on res when they get qualified for 100k in student loans. If the student loans weren't there perhaps they'd live with their parents and work to support their education. Tuitions should fall to affordable levels if that were the case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c331f8add2a514c84351be38a12eaf55", "text": "The only consequence I could see is that they have your money until they pay you back. I'd just do what JoeTaxpayer says and get it back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73f46ebcfc2e50b94d835095573d2fd9", "text": "You should definitely pay the remaining loan amount as quickly as possible. A loan in bad debts means that Bank has written it off books as its a education loan and there is no collateral. The defaults do get report to CIBIL [Credit Information Bureau India] and as such you will have difficulties getting credit card / new loans in future. Talk to the Bank Manager and ask can you regularize the loan? There are multiple options you would need to talk and find out; 1. You can negotiate and arrive at a number. Typically more than the principal outstanding and less than interest and penalties charged. 2. You can request to re-do the monthly payments with new duration, this will give you more time. 3. May one time large payment and subsequent amount in monthly payments. At the end its Bank's discretion whether to accept your terms or not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f3cc07afc72563ecf7740e84bc54c8f", "text": "Well, if someone who owes me money defaults, I lose the money he promised to pay me. To me that would be a huge moral obstacle for declaring myself bankrupt. I was raised in believing that you keep your promises.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6d788c2c8820764899fa402754bd7b6", "text": "Is this true? Yes. Do student loan companies provide predatory lending practices? It appears some do. Does anyone force a student or family to sign the dotted line on their student loans entrapping them in many tough financial years? No. People want to blame others for their problems far too often. How about cash flowing a cheap community college? How about applying for HUNDREDS (yes I said multiple hundreds) of scholarships? How about saving from the age you're able to work until college? How about not picking the most expensive out of state education just because you saw them playing a sports game on ESPN? This system is a mess, I don't disagree there. I think all of this reverts back to the signers of these loans. Plus when people are in massive student loan debt they don't fully commit to getting out of it and working every job possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4787b8822af4b04736b0eabd46266606", "text": "If you are struggling with debt and cannot realistically pay your debts off with your current level of income, these businesses offer, for a fee, to negotiate with your debt providers a sum that you can realistically afford to pay. The debt providers will consider the offer because they would rather get some money back rather than nothing (as these are usually unsecured loans). For you it can be a better deal than going bankrupt or trying to struggle endlessly to pay off something you can't afford to pay off. Note, that even though you won't be bankrupt, you will be treated (by lenders) very similar to being bankrupt. In other words, it will be very hard for you to get new loans in the near future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "355afeb2ad68cbe426be45915b2872bb", "text": "\"In that case, he was not arrested for being unable to pay his bill. He received a summons to court, failed to appear, and so a warrant was issued for his arrest. The $350 was his bail amount, which is funds that must be provided to the court in order to be released while pending trial (you get this money back once you appear before court). He also wasn't convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail in this case, just arrested. He would be \"\"kept\"\" by the courts (if he couldn't post bail) until his court date as a way of being forced to appear. If a judgement was awarded against him, it still doesn't always mean he has to pay. If someone refuses to pay a judgement (but did show up to court) then typically their wages are garnished, which means the court orders that a certain amount of money be withheld from income, tax refunds, etc. until the judgement is paid. However, if the person ordered to pay can prove that they would not be able to have sufficient money to survive if they are garnished (I'm not a lawyer so I am unclear as to the exact process/standards) then there is a chance that nothing will be garnished at all. So in short, no, there is no such thing as debtor's prison in the USA. There is definitely such a thing as being arrested / put in jail for defying court orders, and I'm sure if you took out loans while knowing you have no ability to repay them that you might be able to be charged with some sort of fraud, but just not being able to pay your bills doesn't mean you can go to jail. Of course, there is very little protecting you from simply running out of money and becoming homeless, but that's not your question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "982b04c5e536ff4051aaacf79f34c438", "text": "Some lenders will work with you if you contact them early and openly discuss your situation. They are not required to do so. The larger and more corporate the lender, the less likely you'll find one that will work with you. My experience is that your success in working out repayment plan for missed payments depends on the duration of your reduced income. If this is a period of unemployment and you will be able to pay again in a number of months, you may be able to work out a plan on some debts. If you're permanently unable to pay in full, or the duration is too long, you may have to file bankruptcy to save your domicile and transportation. The ethics of this go beyond this forum, as do the specifics of when it is advisable to file bankruptcy. Research your area, find debt counselling. They can really help with specifics. Speak with your lenders, they may be able to refer you to local non-profit services. Be sure that you find one of those, not one of the predatory lenders posing as credit counselling services. There's even some that take the money you can afford to pay, divide it up over your creditors, allowing you to keep accruing late/partial payment fees, and charge you a fee on top of it. To me this is fraudulent and should be cause for criminal charges. The key is open communication with your lenders with disclosure to the level that they need to know. If you're disabled, long term, they need to know that. They do not need to know the specific symptoms or causes or discomforts. They need to know whether the Social Security Administration has declared you disabled and are paying you a disability check. (If this is the case, you probably have a case worker who can find you resources to help negotiate with your creditors).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3369ef70fc77b2dbaa0460f96c37ed79", "text": "For many folks these days, not having a credit card is just not practical. Personally, I do quite a bit of shopping online for things not available locally. Cash is not an option in these cases and I don't want to give out my debit card number. So, a strategy is this: use a credit card for a purchase. Then immediately, or within a couple days, pay the credit card with that amount. Sounds simple but it takes a little effort to do it. This strategy gives you the convenience of a credit card and decreases the interest enormously.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
fc59603ffb207c1f7547324e074b0107	Treatment of web domain ownership & reselling for tax purposes: Capital asset, or not?	[ { "docid": "13159adef1a7b6b0dd306276c6d60960", "text": "I must say that this is a question that you should hire a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to answer. It is way above our amateurs' pay-grade. That said, I'll tell you what I personally think on the issue. I'm not a licensed tax adviser, and nothing that I write here can be used in any way as a justification for any action. Read the full disclaimer in my profile. I believe you're right to treat those as assets. You bought them as an investment, and you intend to sell them for profit. Here the good news for you end. As we decided to define the domains as an asset, we need to decide what type of asset it is. I believe you're holding a Sec. 197 asset. This is because domain is essentially akin to franchise and trademark, and as such falls under the Sec. 197 definition. That means that your amortization period is 15 years. Your expenses related to these domains should also be amortized, on the same schedule. When you sell a domain, you can deduct the portion that you have not yet deducted from the amortization schedule from your proceeds. Keep in mind passive loss limitations, since losses from assets held as investment cannot offset Schedule C income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "577ee90d22f01183c39258d2162603c5", "text": "As others have said, please talk to a professional adviser. From my quick research, domain names can only be amortized as 197 intangible if it's used for the taxpayer's business. For example, if Corp A pays $200,000 for corpa.com and uses that to point to their homepage, they can amortize it over 15 years as a 197 intangible. (Please refer to this IRS memo https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/201543014.pdf.) The above memo does not issue any guidance in your case, where domains are purchased for investment or resale. Regarding domain names, the U.S. Master Depreciation Guide (2016) by CCH says: Many domain names are purchased in a secondary market from third parties [...] who register names and resell them at a profit. These cost must be capitalized because the name will have a useful life of more than one year. The costs cannot be amortized because a domain name has no useful life. So your decision to capitalize is correct, but your amortization deductions may be challenged by the IRS. When you sell your domain, the gain will be determined by how you treat these assets. If you treat your domains as 197 intangibles, and thus had ordinary deductions through amortization, your gain will be ordinary. If you treated them as capital assets, your gain will be a capital gain. Very conceptually, and because the IRS has not issued specific guidelines, I think holding domain names for resale is similar to buying stock of a company. You can't amortize the investment, and when you sell, the gain or loss is a capital gain/loss.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2a82b567373d7eaed263f4cc27b725f1", "text": "It looks like fair-market value when you receive your virtual currency is counted as income. And you're also subject to self-employment tax on that income. Here's an FAQ from the IRS: Q-8: Does a taxpayer who “mines” virtual currency (for example, uses computer resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the public Bitcoin transaction ledger) realize gross income upon receipt of the virtual currency resulting from those activities? A-8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on taxable income.Q-9: Is an individual who “mines” virtual currency as a trade or business subject to self-employment tax on the income derived from those activities? A-9: If a taxpayer’s “mining” of virtual currency constitutes a trade or business, and the “mining” activity is not undertaken by the taxpayer as an employee, the net earnings from self-employment (generally, gross income derived from carrying on a trade or business less allowable deductions) resulting from those activities constitute selfemployment income and are subject to the self-employment tax. See Chapter 10 of Publication 334, Tax Guide for Small Business, for more information on selfemployment tax and Publication 535, Business Expenses, for more information on determining whether expenses are from a business activity carried on to make a profit. You'd of course be able to offset that income with the expense of mining the virtual currency, depreciation of dedicated mining equipment, electricity, not sure what else. Edit: Here's a good resource on filing taxes with Bitcoin: Filling in the 1040 Income from Bitcoins and all crypto-currencies is declared as either capital gains income or ordinary income, for example from mining. Income Ordinary income will be declared on either your 1040 (line 21 - Other Income) for an individual, or within your Schedule C, if you are self-employed or have sole-proprietor business. Capital Gains Capital gains income, or losses, are declared on Schedule D. Since there are no reported 1099 forms from Bitcoin exchanges, you will need to include your totals with Box C checked for short-term gains, and with Box F checked for long-term gains. Interesting notes from that article, your first example could actually be trickier than expected if you started mining before there was a Monero to USD exchange. Also, there can also be capital gains implications from using your virtual currency to buy goods, which sounds like a pain to keep track of.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91fb41385d3ed83338b90b32b5f44787", "text": "I don't know that I can answer the question fully, but 2 points. The percent that represent capital gains certainly can't exceed 100. Did you mean 50% but the 500% is a typo? More important, funds held in retirement accounts have no issue with this, Cap Gains are meaningless within tax deferred accounts. I don't know the ratio of stocks held in these accounts vs outside, just that the 2011 year end total retirement account worth was $17 trillion. (That's 12 zeros) This strikes me as a high ratio, although more numbers digging is in order.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a09cd21f070cc0902cff893c3827266a", "text": "\"Stocks (among other property) currently is allowed a \"\"stepped-up basis\"\" when valuing for estate tax purpose. From the US IRS web page: To determine if the sale of inherited property is taxable, you must first determine your basis in the property. The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following: The fair market value (FMV) of the property on the date of the decedent's death. The FMV of the property on the alternate valuation date if the executor of the estate chooses to use alternate valuation. See the Instructions for Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return. If you or your spouse gave the property to the decedent within one year before the decedent's death, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Your question continues \"\"the person that died still has to pay taxes on their profits in the year they died, right?\"\" Yes. The estate would be subject to tax on realized gains/losses prior to death.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56f607bca64522b8754268ef2dbe932a", "text": "Once the business is shut down, you'll need to show that the corporation is in bankruptcy and the amounts are unrecoverable. You can then report it as investment loss. I suggest talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), and maybe an attorney, on what the specific technical details are.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b240bf3f322d93678d50fc93a1738b58", "text": "Capital losses from the sale of stocks can be used to offset capital gains from the sale of a house, assuming that house was a rental property the whole time. If it was your principal residence, the capital gains are not taxed. If you used it as both a rental and a principal residence, then it gets more complicated: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/rprtng-ncm/lns101-170/127/rsdnc/menu-eng.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "862b9445109a46967822a08ef1286be4", "text": "Buying capital assets doesn't immediatley reduce a company's profits. They can get allowances for it but the assets are written down over a number of years Edit: two comments below mine were deleted which fairly called me out for amazon's high capital investment policy to which I reaponded: Fine I've had a few drinks. All I meant was capital doesn't directly reduce profits in most instances. Large investments like amazon would. You are right. But for Joe bloggs limited it doesn't. I had in mind the accountant the movie where one line Affleck says confuses capital and revenue and it stuck with me that a lot of people thought this. Didn't mean to have a go.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b45d5ec4b229bc9bf365f2b849ee8988", "text": "\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \"\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\"\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1de1971a83164f2f91c1ca34eb3d445", "text": "\"Selling an asset is not earning income. You are basically moving value from one asset (the laptop) to another (your bank account.) So you reduce the equity that is \"\"value of all my electronics\"\" and you increase the asset that is your bank account. In your case, you never entered the laptop in some category called \"\"value of all my electronics\"\" so you don't have that to make a double-entry against. The temptation is high to call it income as a result. Depending on the reason for all this double-entry book-keeping for personal finances, that may be fine. Or, you can create a category for balancing and use that, and realize the (negative) value of that account doesn't mean much.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ee5f967f040a013fe5a5188ca5f7d40", "text": "Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccee1d130a4cefa6b31916dd78b4f0b3", "text": "\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abe8b5b68a0c31cf7d1413d9103a608d", "text": "\"The relevant IRS publication is 526, Charitable Contributions. The section titled \"\"Contributions you cannot deduct\"\" begins on page 6; item 4 reads: \"\"The value of your time or services.\"\" I read that to mean that, if the website you built were a product, you could deduct its value. I don't understand the legal distinction between goods and services I originally said that I believe that a website is considered a service. Whether a website is a service or a product appears to be much more controversial that I originally thought. I cannot find a clear answer. I'm told that the IRS has a phone number you can call for rulings on this type of question. I've never had to use it, so I don't know how helpful it is. The best I can come up with is the Instructions for Form 1120s, the table titled \"\"Principal Business Activity Codes,\"\" starting on page 39. That table suggests to me that the IRS defines things based on what type of business you are in. Everything I can find in that table that a website could plausibly fall under has the word \"\"service\"\" in its name. I don't really feel like that's a definitive answer, though. Almost as an afterthought, if you were able to deduct the value of the website, you would have to subtract off whatever the value of the advertisement is. You said that it's not much, but there's probably a simple way of estimating that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29072a5d38bc60ace3fc0fbba2e862b9", "text": "You're asking whether the shares you sold while being a US tax resident are taxable in the US. The answer is yes, they are. How you acquired them or what were the circumstances of the sale is irrelevant. When you acquired them is relevant to the determination of the tax treatment - short or long term capital gains. You report this transaction on your Schedule D, follow the instructions. Make sure you can substantiate the cost basis properly based on how much you paid for the shares you sold (the taxable income recognized to you at vest).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "826d062a6cf54470248a68681ae46fc4", "text": "\"Very interesting question. While searching i also found that some precious metal ETFs (including IAU) gains are taxed at 28% because IRS considers it \"\"collectible\"\", rather than the usual long term 15% for stocks and stock holding ETFs. As for capital gain tax you have to pay now my guess it's because of the following statement in the IAU prospectus (page 34): When the trust sells gold, for example to pay expenses, a Shareholder will recognize gain or loss ....\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e042e3439f9834513f29dee86999b6e3", "text": "Just a thought because this is a really good question: Would the buying and selling of blockchain based digital currency, using other blockchain based digital currencies, be subject to like kind treatment and exempt from capital gains until exchanged for a non-blockchain based good or service (or national currency) Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin to buy 100 monero. Monero's price and bitcoin's price then change to where the 100 monero are 3 bitcoins. The person gets their bitcoin back and has 66.67 monero remaining. This scenario could be: Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin at $1000 to buy 100 monero at $10. Bitcoin crashes 80% to $200 while monero crashes to only $6 per monero. $6 times 100 is $600 and if the person gets their bitcoin back (at $200 per bitcoi), they still lost money when measured in US Dollars if they move that bitcoin back to US dollars. In reading the IRS on bitcoin, they only care about the US dollar value of bitcoin or monero and in this example, the US dollar value is less. The person may have more bitcoins, but they still lost money if they sell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e34ecbd3447f887540ffe607a08ea58", "text": "I think the key thing is flexibility - the money is not tied in with the offset mortgage. If you find a better investment, you can always take some of it out and put it towards that instead. Once it matures, if there is nothing good to reinvest in, then it can go back into the offset mortgage. Once you have had money in the offset account, even if you take it out, you have already (irreversibly) saved money on your mortgage. Right now you would be pressed to find an instant access ISA with a rate higher than 1.5%, so if you need immediate access, then the offset account seems good. On the other hand, for retirement, you might be saving longer term, and then you can get an ISA rate of 3%, currently, which may be better for a part of the money (or perhaps the upcoming Lifetime ISA with 25% yearly bonus may make sense for part of the money), if you do not need easy access to all of it. As Dilip says, this assumes you want safe investments.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5da441999cfba9af78f378b7a571b06f	Why does it take so long to refund to credit card?	[ { "docid": "213bfb9c6674440fc32a5733bc2f5010", "text": "\"It's not usually apparent to the average consumer, but there's actually two stages to collecting a payment, and two ways to undo it. The particular combination that occurs may lead to long refund times, on top of any human delays (like Ben Miller's answer addresses). When you pay with a credit card, it is typically only authorized - the issuing bank says \"\"I'm setting this money aside for this transaction\"\", but no money actually changes hands. You'll typically see this on your statement as a \"\"pending\"\" charge. Only later, in a process called \"\"settlement\"\", does your bank actually send money to the merchant's bank. Typically, this process starts the same day that the authorization happens (at close of business), but it may take a few days to complete. In the case of an ecommerce transaction, the merchant may not be allowed to start it until they ship whatever you ordered. On the flip side, a given transaction can be voided off or money can be sent back to your card. In the first case, the transaction will just disappear altogether; in the second, it may disappear or you may see both the payment and the refund on your statement. Voids can be as fast as an authorization, but once a transaction has started settlement, it can't be voided any more. Sending money back (a \"\"refund\"\") goes through the same settlement process as above, and can take just as long. So, to specifically apply that to your question: You get the SMS when the transaction is authorized, even though no money has yet moved. The refund money won't show up until several days after someone indicates that it should happen, and there's no \"\"reverse authorize\"\" operation to let you or your bank know that it's coming.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64cd036c71b8081ea467e1e9221de6ba", "text": "The holdup is from the merchant. To protect themselves, a merchant requires payment before giving you your purchased item/service. That is why you are charged immediately. When getting a refund, the same reason applies. The merchant needs to ensure that you are returning the correct item, or that it is still good, or that you are not trying to defraud the merchant in some way. Once the merchant processes that refund, it is all over for them, and they have no recourse later if they find out they were cheated. That is why they wait a while: the delay gives them time to discover any problems.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "22d806018b64100f766b4cb2237967d7", "text": "That transaction probably cost the merchant $0.50 + 3% or close to $5. They should have refunded your credit card so they could have recouped some of the fees. (I imagine that's why big-box retailers like Home Depot always prefer to put it back on your card than give you store credit) Consider yourself lucky you made out with $0.15 this time. (Had they refunded your card, the 1% of $150 credit would have gone against next month's reward) Once upon a time folks were buying money from the US Mint by the tens of thousands $ range and receiving credit card rewards, then depositing the money to pay it off.. They figured that out and put a stop to it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9954b7e63149a195ebd3ca8937109557", "text": "They will credit your account and it will be applied to future purchases. If the credit card is not used for several months, they will send you a check or transfer it to your bank account. Some people on this site have actually considered sending money to the credit card company in advance, so that the amount that can be charged is temporarily inflated. Keep in mind they will eventually refund the money. Plus you will not earn interest on the refund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78baeb01f4e7246bbd0c988371c2491f", "text": "\"Personally, I would just dispute this one with your CC. I had a situation where a subscription I had cancelled the prior year was billed to me. I called up to have a refund issued, they couldn't find me in their system under three phone numbers and two addresses. The solution they proposed was \"\"send us your credit card statement with the charge circled,\"\" to which I responded \"\"there's no way in hell I'm sending you my CC statement.\"\" Then I disputed the charge with the CC bank and it was gone about two days later. I partially expect to have the same charge appear next year when they try to renew my non-existent subscription again. Now, whether or not this is a normal practice for the company, or just a call center person making a good-faith but insecure attempt to solve your problem is irrelevant. Fact of the matter is, you tried to resolve this with the merchant and the merchant asked for something that's likely outside the bounds of your CC Terms and Conditions; sending your entire number via email. Dispute it and move on. The dispute process exists for a reason.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7be1da953541e9ce40e4598da9a824e4", "text": "\"Debit Cards have a certain processing delay, \"\"lag time\"\", before the transaction from the vendor completes with your bank. In the US it's typically 3 business days but I have seen even a 15 day lag from Panera Bread. I guess in the UK, payment processors have similar processing delays. A business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime, as that's very expensive. Whatever be the lag time, your bank is supposed to cover the payment you promised through your card. Now if you don't have agreements in place (for example, overdraft) with your bank, they will likely have to turn down payments that exceed your available balance. Here is the raw deal: In the end, the responsibility to ensure that your available balance is enough is upon you (and whether you have agreements in place to handle such situations) So what happened is very much legal, a business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime and no ethics are at stake. To ensure such things do not happen to me, I used to use a sub-account from which my debit card used to get paid. I have since moved to credit cards as the hassle of not overdrawing was too much (and overdraft fees from banks in the US are disastrous, especially for people who actually need such a facility)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6754dfd6483eae8339ab3e82202eee70", "text": "\"For customer accounts that you have with a merchant, normally a positive balance in the account is what you owe the merchant. When you have a credit on the account or a negative balance, it usually means that it is an amount that the merchant owes you. This could be because you paid too much, or perhaps it is because the merchant is giving you a refund for some reason. However, it is always a possibility that this particular merchant is not using the terminology in the conventional way. If you aren't sure, the best thing to do is to ask the merchant directly by contacting their customer service department. Just judging from the screenshot you posted, it looks to me like they owe you some money. I suggest you click the \"\"Statement\"\" button; it looks like that will generate some type of statement that will instruct the merchant to send you a refund. But that is only a guess. Their customer service should be able to tell you what to do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f4c44d93e9656e5590d50d88174d087", "text": "\"The preferred accounts are designed to hope you do one of several things: Pay one day late. Then charge you all the deferred interest. Many people think If they put $X a month aside, then pay just before the 6 months, 12 moths or no-payment before 2014 period ends then I will be able to afford the computer, carpet, or furniture. The interest rate they will charge you if you are late will be buried in the fine print. But expect it to be very high. Pay on time, but now that you have a card with their logo on it. So now you feel that you should buy the accessories from them. They hope that you become a long time customer. They want to make money on your next computer also. Their \"\"Bill Me Later\"\" option on that site as essentially the same as the preferred account. In the end you will have another line of credit. They will do a credit check. The impact, both positive and negative, on your credit picture is discussed in other questions. Because two of the three options you mentioned in your question (cash, debit card) imply that you have enough cash to buy the computer today, there is no reason to get another credit card to finance the purchase. The delayed payment with the preferred account, will save you about 10 dollars (2000 * 1% interest * 0.5 years). The choice of store might save you more money, though with Apple there are fewer places to get legitimate discounts. Here are your options: How to get the limit increased: You can ask for a temporary increase in the credit limit, or you can ask for a permanent one. Some credit cards can do this online, others require you to talk to them. If they are going to agree to this, it can be done in a few minutes. Some individuals on this site have even been able to send the check to the credit card company before completing the purchase, thus \"\"increasing\"\" their credit limit. YMMV. I have no idea if it works. A good reason to use the existing credit card, instead of the debit card is if the credit card is a rewards card. The extra money or points can be very nice. Just make sure you pay it back before the bill is due. In fact you can send the money to the credit card company the same day the computer arrives in the mail. Having the transaction on the credit card can also get you purchase protection, and some cards automatically extend the warranty.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6af3c71153cd6f76bcfda075408eb03d", "text": "It is barely possible that this is Citi's fault, but it sounds more like it is on the Costco end. The way that this is supposed to work is that they preauthorize your card for the necessary amount. That reserves the payment, removing the money from your credit line. On delivery, they are supposed to capture the preauthorization. That causes the money to transfer to them. Until that point, they've reserved your payment but not actually received it. If you cancel, then they don't have to pay processing fees. The capture should allow for a larger sale so as to provide for tips, upsells, and unanticipated taxes and fees. In this case, instead of capturing the preauthorization, they seem to have simply generated a new transaction. Citi could be doing something wrong and processing the capture incorrectly. Or Costco could be doing a purchase when they should be doing a capture. From outside, we can't really say. The thirty days would seem to be how long Costco can schedule in advance. So the preauthorization can last that long for them. Costco should also have the ability to cancel a preauthorization. However, they may not know how to trigger that. With smaller merchants, they usually have an interface where they can view preauthorizations and capture or cancel them. Costco may have those messages sent automatically from their system. Note that a common use for this pattern is with things like gasoline or delivery purchases. If this has been Citi/Costco both times, I'd try ordering a pizza or some other delivery food and see if they do it correctly. If it was Citi both times and a different merchant the other time, then it's probably a Citi problem rather than a merchant problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0088551e56693f9713c06610f68b44f1", "text": "You can't make your bank do a charge back. This function is to assist with straight up fraud, not a customer service mistake. (Think spoofed or stolen card or if a vendor intentionally acted fraudulently.) While you may believe what they did is fraud, your bank will require that you provide the vendor with the opportunity to rectify the situation themselves. Trying to call back and giving up after a long hold time won't meet their standards. If banks started letting anyone unhappy with a vendor start doing charge backs, they would be doing nothing else all day. The issues you're describing has not reached the threshold for the bank to authorize a charge back. Comcast has local and regional offices, and you could go in person to speak with someone. Maybe there isn't one near you. There are non-peak hours which wait times will be less. You'll just have to grin and bear it if you truly want the money back. Then, take your business elsewhere and post bad reviews online. Always keep in mind that when you eventually speak with someone, they will not be the person that messed up, and you should be overly nice and polite to them. I promise it will yield far better results than being surly and demanding. Another way to get Comcast's attention would be to file a complaint with the BBB. It might take longer, but I've had this work with big companies, usually with good results. Again, be nice to whomever contacts you. In reference to your recent duplicate question: Mastercard won't be able to help at all. They play no part in the transaction at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66c921cb4de75060ffdc0fb8e688a1c2", "text": "\"While I agree with Ben a lot I feel like his answer is really poor here. You do not call a number to give your credit card information out for a refund. That is ridiculous. Just from his answer - he has had 5 cases of fraud lately - you should know that you shouldn't follow this advice. I personally don't ever give my credit card number over the phone, unless it is the very very very last resort. It is not just about money and safety but it is about time. Every time that you give your number out over the phone there is a chance that the employee on the other end (by either scam or legitimate business) will use or sell your info. So you need to determine if the time saved by doing a transaction over the phone is worth hours/days of your time if your card has a fraud issue. And note that fraud sometimes is easily negated, but if done smartly can be hard to prove via a quick call or email to card company. What should you do? Tell company that you will simply get the refund through your credit card company. And if we go back to time element... You fill out form on card website. Card company goes back to vendor and says - \"\"Why are you asking for card numbers via email?\"\" Card company either cancels vendor contract or more likely helps them understand the technology available so they don't have to do this. Therefore that quick form that you filled out will now keep this company from bugging you again. By going through their archaic \"\"systems\"\" you are enabling their behavior.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37f6597e2e6a4b22e125e518e9a4d00f", "text": "Bank products have been pretty common with tax refunds as well, and they are also being heavily scrutinized for the same reasons. Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) have been outlawed for future tax seasons due to lack of consumer protection. What is a bank product, you might ask? Rather than waiting 7-14 days for the a direct deposit from the IRS, a lot of places like H+R Block and Jackson Hewitt would offer a bank product to get you money quicker. For this service, they charge a fee (usually $99-$149) which is grossly overpriced for how little work it takes, but if your refund is several thousand dollars, you may not care. A Refund Anticipation Loan was the most predatory bank product, as it was an advance on your loan for the amount your expected refund. However, if there were any errors in your return and the IRS decided your refund was less than what your tax preparer calculated it to be, you were stuck with paying back the advance amount, leaving you to foot the bill for whatever errors your preparer may have made. These loans also had very high interest rates, since usually the people that wanted RALs were also the same people that rely upon cash advances. There are also Electronic Refund Checks (which ironically are paper checks for the consumer, not electronic deposits), direct deposits, and prepaid debit cards. Despite the fact that these same methods of refund payments are offered by the IRS themselves, preparers and banks alike sold these to collect fees for essentially no work. I'm not sure how similar these bank products for student loans are, but I wanted to shed some light on them anyways. Regardless of how badly you need money, do not ever accept money through a bank product. If it benefited you more, banks and preparers would not offer these. (Source: telemarketing at a tax preparation software company)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04ec40ba524d53671ccf2da3a8ecf9d8", "text": "Your bank will convert it (taking a fee for that, of course). It might be delayed some days so it can clear (2-3 days).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e216b8086ba2920e1ff98ceb87590304", "text": "Its not just late fees. The fees for going over your credit limit are exorbitant. To make things worse, they will rearrange the transactions you make during a day so that they can charge you more by making more of them fail.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc28dfa716f66d5aff573a4d995cbf1a", "text": "\"Executive summary: It sounds like the merchant just did an authorization then cancelled that authorization when you cancelled the order, so there was never an actual charge so you'll never see an actual refund and there's no money to \"\"claim\"\". More detail: From your second paragraph, it sounds like they just did an authorization but never posted the transaction. A credit card authorization is basically the merchant asking your credit card company \"\"Does sandi have enough credit to pay this amount and if so please reserve that amount for a bit.\"\" The authorization will decrease the total credit you have available on the card, but it's not actually a charge, so if your billing cycle ends, it won't show up on your statement. Depending on which company issued your credit card, you may be able to see the authorization online, usually labelled something like \"\"Pending transactions\"\". Even if your credit card company doesn't show pending transactions, you'll see a decrease in your available credit, however you shouldn't see an increase in your balance. The next step, and the only way the original merchant gets paid, is for the merchant to actually post a transaction to your card. Then it becomes a real charge that will show up on your next credit card statement and you'll be expected to pay it (unless you dispute the charge, but that's a different issue). If the charge is for the same amount as the authorization, the authorization will go away (it's now been converted to an actual charge). If the amounts are different, or the merchant never posts a transaction, the authorization will be removed by your credit card company automatically after a certain amount of time. So it sounds like you placed the order, the merchant did an authorization to make sure you could pay for it and to reserve the money, but then you cancelled the order before the merchant could post the transaction, so you were never really charged for it. The merchant then cancelled the authorization (going by the start of your third paragraph). So there was never an actual transaction posted, you were never charged, and you never really owed any money. Your available credit went down for a bit, but now should be restored to what it was before you placed the order. You'll never see an actual refund reflected on your credit card statement because there was no actual transaction.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd8c7409b7e8aa91eec22d0b56fdad7b", "text": "Each bank is different. Usually in my experience for newer credit card accounts, there is a specific number of days in a billing cycle (something like 28) and then a 20-25 day grace period. Older accounts usually have 30+ day billing cycles. Back in the 90's, many cards also had 30-40 day grace periods. The language specific to your card is in the card agreement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2ea0cf0c472d2cb95c2b6b9cdac798e", "text": "\"They are right to ask for the money back because you were not entitled to that money. However, you may have a defense called \"\"laches\"\". Basically, you can try to show that because of the government's unreasonable delay in asking for the money back, in the meantime you relied on the assumption that it was your money in good faith, and spent it, and now to have to come up with the money that you assumed you wouldn't need would cause great harm to you.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.